Beard (Jesse) v. State

Nevada Supreme Court

Beard (Jesse) v. State

DecidedApril 10, 2014

Docket64458

StatusUnpublished

This text of Beard (Jesse) v. State (Beard (Jesse) 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

Beard (Jesse) v. State, (Neb. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Kirksey v. State, 112 Nev. 980, 988, 923 P.2d 1102, 1107 (1996). Both components of the inquiry must be shown. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 697 (1984). Appellant claimed that hisS trial counsel was ineffective for coercing him into entering a guilty plea. Appellant's bare claim failed to demonstrate deficiency or prejudice as he failed to state how counsel coerced him. See Hargrove v. State, 100 Nev. 498, 502-03, 686 P.2d 222, 225 (1984). Moreover, appellant acknowledged in his guilty plea agreement and during his plea colloquy that he was entering his plea freely and voluntarily. We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in denying this claim. Next, appellant claimed that the district court abused its discretion by not considering appellant's motion to withdraw guilty plea. This claim falls outside the scope of claims permissible in a post-conviction habeas petition challenging a judgment of conviction based upon a guilty plea. See NRS 34.810(1)(a). Moreover, the record demonstrates that the district court never received a motion to withdraw guilty plea from appellant, and appellant failed to demonstrate that he submitted a motion to the district court. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying this claim. To the extent that appellant claimed the State violated the terms of the guilty plea agreement by releasing appellant on his own recognizance pending sentencing and not releasing him to a sober living in-patient facility, this claim is not cognizable in a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging a judgment of conviction based upon a guilty plea. NRS 34.810(1)(a). Furthermore, we conclude that the

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) I947A 44td4:9 district court did not err in declining to appoint post-conviction counsel. NRS 34.750. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

J.

J. Saitta

cc: Hon. James M. Bixler, District Judge Jesse Beard Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) [947A e

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

Kirksey v. State, 112 Nev. 980, 988, 923 P.2d 1102, 1107 (1996). Both components of the inquiry must be shown. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 697 (1984). Appellant claimed that hisS trial counsel was ineffective for coercing him into entering a guilty plea. Appellant's bare claim failed to demonstrate deficiency or prejudice as he failed to state how counsel coerced him. See Hargrove v. State, 100 Nev. 498, 502-03, 686 P.2d 222, 225 (1984). Moreover, appellant acknowledged in his guilty plea agreement and during his plea colloquy that he was entering his plea freely and voluntarily. We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in denying this claim. Next, appellant claimed that the district court abused its discretion by not considering appellant's motion to withdraw guilty plea. This claim falls outside the scope of claims permissible in a post-conviction habeas petition challenging a judgment of conviction based upon a guilty plea. See NRS 34.810(1)(a). Moreover, the record demonstrates that the district court never received a motion to withdraw guilty plea from appellant, and appellant failed to demonstrate that he submitted a motion to the district court. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying this claim. To the extent that appellant claimed the State violated the terms of the guilty plea agreement by releasing appellant on his own recognizance pending sentencing and not releasing him to a sober living in-patient facility, this claim is not cognizable in a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging a judgment of conviction based upon a guilty plea. NRS 34.810(1)(a). Furthermore, we conclude that the

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) I947A 44td4:9 district court did not err in declining to appoint post-conviction counsel. NRS 34.750. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

J.

J. Saitta

cc: Hon. James M. Bixler, District Judge Jesse Beard Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) [947A e

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Beard (Jesse) v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beard-jesse-v-state-nev-2014.

Opinion

J. Saitta

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack