Mayo (Demondray) v. State

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: December 18, 2015
• Docket: 67066
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

effect they had on his mental state, or how they rendered his plea involuntary. Therefore, appellant fails to demonstrate that the district court erred by denying these claims without conducting an evidentiary hearing. 2 See Hargrove v. State, 100 Nev. 498, 502, 686 P.2d 222, 225 (1984). Second, appellant contends that the district court erred by denying his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. To prove ineffective assistance of counsel in the context of a guilty plea, a petitioner must demonstrate that counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and, but for counsel's errors, he would not have pleaded guilty. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58-59 (1985); Kirksey v. State, 112 Nev. 980, 988, 923 P.2d 1102, 1107 (1996). We conclude that no relief is warranted on these claims. See Lader v. Warden, 121 Nev. 682, 686, 120 P.3d 1164, 1166 (2005) (explaining that we give deference to the district court's factual findings but review the court's application of the law to those facts de novo). Appellant does not specify what alternative defenses counsel should have pursued or what laws counsel should have explained to him before he pleaded guilty. Similarly, appellant does not explain how requesting an accommodation for his intellectual disabilities during the plea canvass would have caused him to reject the plea. Therefore, appellant fails to demonstrate that the district court erred by denying these claims without conducting an evidentiary hearing. See Hargrove, 100 Nev. at 502, 686 P.2d at 225.

2 For the same reasons, appellant fails to demonstrate that counsel were ineffective for failing to address the issue of his medications in the guilty plea agreement, plea canvass, or motion to withdraw his plea.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1907A e Finally, appellant contends that the district court erred by (1) denying• his claim that the sentencing scheme in existence at the time of his sentencing was unconstitutional, and (2) "provid[ing] an incorrect analysis of the belated appeal and successive petition issue." Appellant's arguments regarding these claims are not clear and he suggests they are only being raised for preservation purposes. Accordingly, we decline to consider these claims. Having concluded that no relief is warranted, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

J. Gibbons

J. Pickering

cc: Eighth Judicial District Court Dept. 20 Pitaro & Fumo, Chtd. Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A .43N:D