Castro (Ezequiel) v. State

Nevada Supreme Court

Castro (Ezequiel) v. State

DecidedJune 13, 2013

Docket60800

StatusUnpublished

This text of Castro (Ezequiel) v. State (Castro (Ezequiel) 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

Castro (Ezequiel) v. State, (Neb. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

assuming that laches does not preclude consideration of appellant's motion on the merits, see Hart v. State, 116 Nev. 558, 563-65, 1 P.3d 969, 972 (2000) ("[C]onsideration of the equitable doctrine of laches is necessary in determining whether a defendant has shown 'manifest injustice' that would permit withdrawal of a plea after sentencing."), we conclude that he is not entitled to relief because his conviction became final prior to Padilla and he cannot benefit from its holding as Padilla does not apply retroactively. Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. „ 133 S. Ct. 1103, 1113 (2013). Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not err by denying appellant's motion, and we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

/ J.

Parrag-uirre

(VtA Cherry

cc: Chief Judge, The Eighth Judicial District C -Ourt Hon. J. Charles Thompson, Senior Judge Don P. Chairez Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A

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

assuming that laches does not preclude consideration of appellant's motion on the merits, see Hart v. State, 116 Nev. 558, 563-65, 1 P.3d 969, 972 (2000) ("[C]onsideration of the equitable doctrine of laches is necessary in determining whether a defendant has shown 'manifest injustice' that would permit withdrawal of a plea after sentencing."), we conclude that he is not entitled to relief because his conviction became final prior to Padilla and he cannot benefit from its holding as Padilla does not apply retroactively. Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. „ 133 S. Ct. 1103, 1113 (2013). Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not err by denying appellant's motion, and we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.