Opinion ID: 1218865
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Whether Castillo's Sentence is Constitutional.

Text: Castillo claims that his sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. See Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 103 S.Ct. 3001, 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983) (criminal sentences disproportionate to the crime committed violate the Eighth Amendment). He argues that because he was not a true adult when he committed the offenses, did not use a deadly weapon, did not cause  substantial bodily harm to either victim, and did not engage in something more deviant than forcible rape, this court should find his sentence unconstitutional. He further maintains that he was an immature and impulsive juvenile when he committed these acts and that examinations by two competent psychologists four years apart have failed to turn up any serious personality disorders. Lastly, he asserts that the uncontroverted evidence that he had been ingesting anabolic steroids at the time of the attacks, in connection with his desires to be a star football player for the Douglas High Tigers, should mitigate his punishment. [2] We conclude that Castillo's arguments are without merit for the following reasons. First, we note that the written plea bargain signed by Castillo, pursuant to which four other felony charges were dismissed, stated that he could be given the maximum sentence for each offense. Second, the minimum time to be served for sexual assault on a life sentence or on a definite term of years is the same, five years. See NRS 200.366(2)(b). Therefore, it is possible that even though Castillo was given a life sentence, he could be paroled at the same time he would have if given a lesser sentence. [3] Third, the trial court has wide discretion in imposing a sentence, and unless there is a showing of abuse of discretion, the sentence will be upheld. Randell v. State, 109 Nev. 5, 846 P.2d 278 (1993); see Deveroux v. State, 96 Nev. 388, 390, 610 P.2d 722, 723-24 (1980) (a judge has discretion in deciding what weight to accord to youth and lack of a prior criminal record in sentencing). If a sentence is within the statutory limits, it will not be considered cruel and unusual punishment unless it is so disproportionate to the crime that it shocks the conscience and offends fundamental notions of human dignity. Lloyd v. State, 94 Nev. 167, 170, 576 P.2d 740, 743 (1978). The evidence in the record shows that Castillo committed premeditated, brutal crimes. Castillo's escape from the juvenile detention center and flight to Florida, where he committed further crimes and an act of sexual deviancy, show not only an attempt to avoid responsibility, but also a flagrant disregard for the law. Castillo's cries for mitigation based on claims that he was immature when he committed the crimes, that he did not engage in something more deviant than forcible rape, and that he was taking steroids in order to be a star football player, are further attempts to avoid taking responsibility for what are serious, adult offenses meriting adult punishment. [4] We support the current trend that juvenile offenders who commit serious violent crimes should be prosecuted as adults, and we thus conclude that Castillo's sentence is constitutional.