Ybarra (Perfecto) v. State

Nevada Supreme Court

Ybarra (Perfecto) v. State

DecidedOctober 16, 2013

Docket62236

StatusUnpublished

This text of Ybarra (Perfecto) v. State (Ybarra (Perfecto) v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ybarra (Perfecto) v. State, (Neb. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Legislature is empowered, within constitutional limits, to define crimes and fix punishments, and this court should not "encroach upon that domain lightly." Schmidt v. State, 94 Nev. 665, 668, 584 P.2d 695, 697 (1978). Consistent with this separation of powers, this court has held that, regardless of its severity, a sentence that is within the statutory limits is not "cruel and unusual punishment unless the statute fixing punishment is unconstitutional or the sentence is so unreasonably disproportionate to the offense as to shock the conscience." Blume v. State, 112 Nev. 472, 475, 915 P.2d 282, 284 (1996) (quoting CuIverson v. State, 95 Nev. 433, 435, 596 P.2d 220, 221-22 (1979)); see also Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1000-01 (1991) (plurality opinion). Ybarra's claim that the mandatory nature of Nevada's sentencing scheme makes it cruel and unusual "has no support in the text and history of the Eighth Amendment," Harmelin, 501 U.S. at 994, and "outside the context of capital punishment, successful challenges to the proportionality, of particular sentences will be exceedingly rare," Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 289-90 (1983) (internal quotation marks, emphasis and alterations omitted). Ybarra's sentence of consecutive terms of life in prison, each carrying a minimum parole eligibility after ten years, falls within the parameters provided by the relevant statutes, see NRS 176.035(1); NRS 200.366; NRS 201.230(2), and the sentence is not so unreasonably disproportionate to the gravity of the offenses as to shock the conscience, see CuIverson, 95 Nev. at 435, 596 P.2d at 221-22; see also Griego v. State, 111 Nev. 444, 447, 893 P.2d 995, 997-98 (1995), abrogated on other grounds by Koerschner v. State, 116 Nev. 1111, 13 P.3d 451 (2000);

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A Adaway v. State, 902 So. 2d 746, 747-53 (Fla. 2005). Therefore, we conclude that NRS 201.230(2) does not impose cruel and/or unusual punishment. Second, Ybarra contends that the district court abused its discretion by agreeing with Ybarra's stipulation to serve consecutive life sentences for sexual assault and lewdness with a child under the age of fourteen years. This court will not disturb a district court's sentencing determination absent an abuse of discretion. Randell v. State, 109 Nev. 5, 8, 846 P.2d 278, 280 (1993). Ybarra has not demonstrated that the district court relied on impalpable or highly suspect evidence when it agreed with Ybarra's stipulation. See Chavez v. State, 125 Nev. 328, 348, 213 P.3d 476, 490 (2009). Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion at sentencing. Third, Ybarra contends that the district court's imposition of a $10,000 fine at sentencing amounts to cruel and/or unusual punishment because he was indigent at the time of sentencing. See U.S. Const. amend. VIII; Nev. Const. art. 1, § 6. Ybarra admits that he receives a monthly Veteran's Administration benefit of $125 and has failed to demonstrate that he will not receive a portion of this benefit while he is incarcerated. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.665(d) (2013) (discussing the amount payable to incarcerated beneficiaries). Furthermore, Nevada law provides a procedure for Ybarra to request a reduction of his fine or installment plan based on his financial ability to pay. See NRS 176.085; see also Gilbert v. State, 99 Nev. 702, 708, 669 P.2d 699, 702-03 (1983). We conclude that Ybarra's fine does not amount to cruel and/or unusual punishment. See

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A • Culverson, 95 Nev. at 435, 596 P.2d at 221-22; see also Harmelin, 501 U.S. at 1000-01 (plurality opinion). Having considered Ybarra's contentions and concluded that he is not entitled to relief, we ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

, J Hardesty

PGA> Parraguirre

J.

cc: Hon. Jerome Polaha, District Judge Karla K. Butko Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 4 (0) 1947A

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Legislature is empowered, within constitutional limits, to define crimes and fix punishments, and this court should not "encroach upon that domain lightly." Schmidt v. State, 94 Nev. 665, 668, 584 P.2d 695, 697 (1978). Consistent with this separation of powers, this court has held that, regardless of its severity, a sentence that is within the statutory limits is not "cruel and unusual punishment unless the statute fixing punishment is unconstitutional or the sentence is so unreasonably disproportionate to the offense as to shock the conscience." Blume v. State, 112 Nev. 472, 475, 915 P.2d 282, 284 (1996) (quoting CuIverson v. State, 95 Nev. 433, 435, 596 P.2d 220, 221-22 (1979)); see also Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1000-01 (1991) (plurality opinion). Ybarra's claim that the mandatory nature of Nevada's sentencing scheme makes it cruel and unusual "has no support in the text and history of the Eighth Amendment," Harmelin, 501 U.S. at 994, and "outside the context of capital punishment, successful challenges to the proportionality, of particular sentences will be exceedingly rare," Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 289-90 (1983) (internal quotation marks, emphasis and alterations omitted). Ybarra's sentence of consecutive terms of life in prison, each carrying a minimum parole eligibility after ten years, falls within the parameters provided by the relevant statutes, see NRS 176.035(1); NRS 200.366; NRS 201.230(2), and the sentence is not so unreasonably disproportionate to the gravity of the offenses as to shock the conscience, see CuIverson, 95 Nev. at 435, 596 P.2d at 221-22; see also Griego v. State, 111 Nev. 444, 447, 893 P.2d 995, 997-98 (1995), abrogated on other grounds by Koerschner v. State, 116 Nev. 1111, 13 P.3d 451 (2000);

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A Adaway v. State, 902 So. 2d 746, 747-53 (Fla. 2005). Therefore, we conclude that NRS 201.230(2) does not impose cruel and/or unusual punishment. Second, Ybarra contends that the district court abused its discretion by agreeing with Ybarra's stipulation to serve consecutive life sentences for sexual assault and lewdness with a child under the age of fourteen years. This court will not disturb a district court's sentencing determination absent an abuse of discretion. Randell v. State, 109 Nev. 5, 8, 846 P.2d 278, 280 (1993). Ybarra has not demonstrated that the district court relied on impalpable or highly suspect evidence when it agreed with Ybarra's stipulation. See Chavez v. State, 125 Nev. 328, 348, 213 P.3d 476, 490 (2009). Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion at sentencing. Third, Ybarra contends that the district court's imposition of a $10,000 fine at sentencing amounts to cruel and/or unusual punishment because he was indigent at the time of sentencing. See U.S. Const. amend. VIII; Nev. Const. art. 1, § 6. Ybarra admits that he receives a monthly Veteran's Administration benefit of $125 and has failed to demonstrate that he will not receive a portion of this benefit while he is incarcerated. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.665(d) (2013) (discussing the amount payable to incarcerated beneficiaries). Furthermore, Nevada law provides a procedure for Ybarra to request a reduction of his fine or installment plan based on his financial ability to pay. See NRS 176.085; see also Gilbert v. State, 99 Nev. 702, 708, 669 P.2d 699, 702-03 (1983). We conclude that Ybarra's fine does not amount to cruel and/or unusual punishment. See