Kozlowski (Steven) v. State

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: April 10, 2014
• Docket: 63304
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

court's actions pursuant to its inherent authority are reviewed for abuse of discretion). Second, Kozlowski argues that his• guilty plea was not knowing or voluntary. He asserts that he could not comprehend the proceedings because of the lack of a note-taker, the court failed to canvas him regarding his veteran status, and he was medicated at the time of his plea. Generally, challenges to the validity of a guilty plea must be raised in the district court in the first instance by either filing a motion to withdraw the guilty plea or commencing a timely post-conviction proceeding pursuant to NRS chapter 34. Bryant v. State, 102 Nev. 268, 272, 721 P.2d 364, 367-68 (1986), limited by Smith v. State, 110 Nev. 1009, 1010 n.1, 879 P.2d 60, 61 n.1 (1994), see also O'Guinn v. State, 118 Nev. 849, 851-52, 59 P.3d 488, 489-90 (2002). Because the record does not indicate that Kozlowski challenged the validity of his guilty plea on this basis in the district court, his claim is not appropriate for review on direct appeal from the judgment of conviction, and, therefore, we need not address it. Bryant, 102 Nev. at 272, 721 P.2d at 368. Third, Kozlowski contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress his blood sample and motion to produce his blood sample, or in the alternative, dismiss based on the destruction of the sample. We decline to consider the merits of Kozlowski's contention because he waived his claim when he entered the guilty plea. Generally, the entry of a guilty plea waives any right to appeal from events occurring prior to the entry of the plea. See Webb v. State, 91 Nev. 469, 538 P.2d 164 (1975) ("`[A] guilty plea represents a break in the chain of events which has preceded it in the criminal process. . . . [A defendant] may not thereafter raise independent claims relating to the deprivation of

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 19474 ea constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea." (first alteration in original) (quoting Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973))). NRS 174.035(3) permits, with the consent of the district court and the district attorney, a defendant pleading guilty to reserve in writing the right to appeal an adverse determination on a specified pretrial motion. However, Kozlowski does not assert, and the record does not indicate, that he preserved the right to appeal these issues prior to pleading guilty. Having considered Kozlowski's contentions and concluded that they lack merit, we ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

Piaeu Pickering

J. .C241)I n....nna,2411Strialmr ParraguiTTe '}A .

At+ J. Saitta

cc: Hon. Michael P. Gibbons, District Judge Jamie C. Henry Attorney General/Carson City Douglas County District Attorney/Minden Douglas County Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A