Frias (Rogelio) v. State

Opinion

without addressing the merits of Frias' claims or the State's argument that the motion was barred by the doctrine of laches.

Even assuming that laches does not preclude consideration of Frias' motion on the merits, see Hart v. State, 116 Nev. 558, 563-65, 1 P.3d 969, 972-73 (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 "Padilla does not have retroactive effect." Chaidez v. U.S., No. 11-820, 2013 WL 610201, at 1 (U.S. February 20, 2013). Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not err by denying Frias' motion, and we ORDER the ju t di rict court AFFIRMED.

i_koutk,4

ibbons

D'Otifit I(VS ,J Douglas Saitta

cc: Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, District Judge Law Offices of Anthony D. Guenther, Esq. Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

2

(0) 1947A

_