Higuera v. State
This text of 564 P.2d 610 (Higuera 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.
Opinion
[296]*296OPINION
Appellant was charged by information with possession of a controlled substance, a felony under NRS 453.336, and furnishing a controlled substance, a felony under NRS 453.321. In return for the dismissal of the charge of furnishing a controlled substance, appellant entered a solemn plea of guilty to the possession charge. In this appeal, submitted pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Sanchez v. State, 85 Nev. 95, 450 P.2d 793 (1969), appellant contends his guilty plea was not made voluntarily and intelligently. We disagree.
The record affirmatively shows the plea was voluntary, not coerced, and not the result of a promise of leniency, and that appellant, who was represented by counsel, understood the nature of the charge, the consequences of his plea, and knowingly and understanding^ waived the right to trial by jury, the right to confront his accusers, and the privilege against self-incrimination. Under these circumstances, appellant’s contention is without merit. Heffley v. Warden, 89 Nev. 573, 516 P.2d 1403 (1973); Higby v. Sheriff, 86 Nev. 774, 476 P.2d 959 (1970).
Affirmed.1
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
564 P.2d 610, 93 Nev. 295, 1977 Nev. LEXIS 542, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/higuera-v-state-nev-1977.