Morente (Silvio) v. State

Nevada Supreme Court

Morente (Silvio) v. State

DecidedJune 11, 2014

Docket64761

StatusUnpublished

This text of Morente (Silvio) v. State (Morente (Silvio) 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

Morente (Silvio) v. State, (Neb. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

1032, 1039, 194 P.3d 1224, 1228-29 (2008), and its determination whether withdrawal was warranted for an abuse of discretion, Molina v. State, 120 Nev. 185, 191, 87 P.3d 533, 538 (2004). Even assuming, without deciding, that the doctrine of laches did not preclude consideration of Morente's motion, he is not entitled to relief because "Padilla does not have retroactive effect." Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. , 133 S. Ct. 1103, 1105 (2013). We reject Morente's assertion that his case is not final because the instant motion is tantamount to a direct appeal as well as his assertion that the retroactivity analysis described in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), should not apply for the same reason. Moreover, the record does not demonstrate that Morente was affirmatively misadvised of the immigration consequences of pleading guilty. Accordingly, we conclude the district court did not err by denying his motion, and we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

_etu ( ait J. Pickering ify J. Parragairre ,

iil+/L: z"s J. Saitta

cc: Hon. Douglas Smith, District Judge Law Offices of Anthony D. Guenther, Esq. Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A

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

1032, 1039, 194 P.3d 1224, 1228-29 (2008), and its determination whether withdrawal was warranted for an abuse of discretion, Molina v. State, 120 Nev. 185, 191, 87 P.3d 533, 538 (2004). Even assuming, without deciding, that the doctrine of laches did not preclude consideration of Morente's motion, he is not entitled to relief because "Padilla does not have retroactive effect." Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. , 133 S. Ct. 1103, 1105 (2013). We reject Morente's assertion that his case is not final because the instant motion is tantamount to a direct appeal as well as his assertion that the retroactivity analysis described in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), should not apply for the same reason. Moreover, the record does not demonstrate that Morente was affirmatively misadvised of the immigration consequences of pleading guilty. Accordingly, we conclude the district court did not err by denying his motion, and we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

_etu ( ait J. Pickering ify J. Parragairre ,

iil+/L: z"s J. Saitta

cc: Hon. Douglas Smith, District Judge Law Offices of Anthony D. Guenther, Esq. Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Morente (Silvio) v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morente-silvio-v-state-nev-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack