Boney (William) v. Warden C/W 65537

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: November 12, 2014
• Docket: 65536
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Lader v. Warden, 121 Nev. 682, 686, 120 P.3d 1164, 1166 (2005). Here, the district court conducted an evidentiary hearing and heard testimony from Boney and his former counsel. The district court determined that although counsel misinformed Boney about his potential sentence, he failed to demonstrate prejudice because, "in essence, petitioner conceded he still would have pleaded guilty had [counsel] correctly explained the possible sentences he faced." The district court stated that it was "not persuaded" that Boney "would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on proceeding to trial absent the misinformation." See Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58-59 (1985); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694 (1984); Kirksey v. State, 112 Nev. 980, 987, 923 P.2d 1102, 1107 (1996); see also Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. „ 131 S. Ct. 1388, 1408 (2011) ("Surmounting Strickland's high bar is never an easy task." (quotation marks omitted) (alteration omitted)). The district court also found that Boney entered his guilty pleas knowingly and intelligently, see Bryant v. State, 102 Nev. 268, 272, 721 P.2d 364, 368 (1986), and that his pleas were not rendered invalid by counsel's failure to execute certificates of counsel, see Sparks v. State, 121 Nev. 107, 112, 110 P.3d 486, 489 (2005) (failure to substantially comply with NRS 174.063 will not invalidate a guilty plea "provided that the totality of the circumstances indicates that the guilty plea was knowing, voluntary and intelligent"). We conclude that the district court did not err by rejecting Boney's ineffective-assistance claims. Second, Boney contends that the district court erred by improperly analyzing his ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claims as challenges to the validity of his guilty pleas. In support of his claim, Boney refers to statements made by the district court at his evidentiary

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A

kUgUr` hearing. Boney, however, does not address the district court's order denying his claims. We have held that only a final judgment, signed by the judge and entered by the clerk, is effective and appealable. See Rust v. Clark Cty. School District, 103 Nev. 686, 689, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987) (explaining that oral pronouncements from the bench are ineffective for any purpose). The district court's written order properly analyzes Boney's claims pursuant to the standard announced in Strickland and as noted in Kirksey, 112 Nev. at 998, 923 P.2d at 1113-14. Therefore, we conclude that Boney's contention is without merit. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgments of the district court AFFIRMED.

Hardesty Sth , J.

Douglas . D#074 , j.

akar Cherry

cc: Hon. Janet J. Berry, District Judge Janet S. Bessemer Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A e