Hall (Andrew) v. State

CourtNevada Supreme Court
DecidedMay 12, 2014
Docket64257
StatusUnpublished

This text of Hall (Andrew) v. State (Hall (Andrew) 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
Hall (Andrew) v. State, (Neb. 2014).

Opinion

review the court's application of the law to those facts de novo. Lader v.

Warden, 121 Nev. 682, 686, 120 P.3d 1164, 1166 (2005).

First, Hall claims that counsel was ineffective during the

juvenile proceedings for failing to appeal the Certification to Adult Status

Order. We conclude that the district court did not err by denying this

claim. By pleading guilty to felony charges, Hall waived his challenge to

the juvenile proceedings. See Reuben C. v. State, 99 Nev. 845, 846, 673

P.2d 493, 493-94 (1983) ("[Al challenge to the juvenile proceedings which

resulted in the filing of felony charges against [the juvenile] is precluded

by the entry of a plea of guilty to those charges."); see also Powell v.

Sheriff Clark Cnty., 85 Nev. 684, 687, 462 P.2d 756, 758 (1969).

Second, Hall claims that counsel was ineffective during the

district court proceedings for failing to appeal the judgment of conviction.

At an evidentiary hearing, Hall testified that he did not request counsel to

file an appeal or tell counsel he was unhappy with his sentence. See

Toston v. State, 127 Nev. „ 267 P.3d 795, 800 (2011) (holding that

trial counsel has a duty to file a direct appeal when a client requests one

or when the client expresses dissatisfaction with his conviction and

sentence). Counsel testified that Hall did not ask him to file an appeal

and did not give the impression that he wanted to appeal. Counsel further

testified that he did not believe there were any meritorious issues to raise

on appeal. The district court determined that Hall failed to demonstrate

that counsel was ineffective. Because the district court's findings are

supported by substantial evidence and we agree with the district court's

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A determinations, we conclude that it did not err by denying this claim.

Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

ciLt_tt J. Hardesty

,2:›vtal (691" Douglas

J.

cc: Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge Bush & Levy, LLC Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) I 947A

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

Related

Powell v. Sheriff, Clark County
462 P.2d 756 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1969)
Toston v. State
267 P.3d 795 (Nevada Supreme Court, 2011)
Lader v. Warden, Northern Nevada Correctional Center
120 P.3d 1164 (Nevada Supreme Court, 2005)
Reuben C. v. State
673 P.2d 493 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Hall (Andrew) v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-andrew-v-state-nev-2014.