Martinez (Daniel) v. State

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: November 13, 2015
• Docket: 67708
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

fails to demonstrate that his plea was involuntarily or unknowingly entered. See Hargrove v. State, 100 Nev. 498, 502 03, 686 P.2d 222, 225 -

(1984) (explaining that bare and naked claims are insufficient to demonstrate that a petitioner is entitled to relief). Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying this claim. Second, Martinez claimed that his due process rights were violated when the district court failed to adequately advise him of the consequences of his plea. Martinez fails to identify any consequences for which he was inadequately advised, and his bare and naked claim fails to demonstrate that his guilty plea was involuntarily or unknowingly entered. See id. Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying this claim. Third, Martinez claimed that his due process rights were violated when his appellate counsel failed to provide him with his case file. This claim was outside the scope permissible in a postconviction petition challenging a guilty plea because the claim did not challenge the voluntariness of the guilty plea or the effective assistance of counsel in relation to the plea. See NRS 34.810(1)(a). Furthermore, this claim is belied by the record, as appellate counsel certified that he had provided Martinez with all of the documents in his possession. Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying this claim. Fourth, Martinez claimed that his due process rights were violated when the prosecutor improperly sought habitual criminal adjudication. This claim was outside the scope permissible in a postconviction petition challenging a guilty plea. See id. Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying this claim.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 194Th e Finally, Martinez claimed that he was denied due process and the effective assistance of counsel due to multiple errors that occurred before and during sentencing. He identifies no such errors but instead relies on his claim that his appellate counsel failed to provide him with his case file. Because Martinez alleged no facts that would demonstrate that his plea was invalid, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying this claim. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

, C.J. Hardesty

J. Douglas

cc: Hon. Douglas Smith, District Judge Daniel Martinez Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A