Ramey v. State

Nevada Supreme Court

Ramey v. State

661 P.2d 1292, 99 Nev. 264, 1983 Nev. LEXIS 429

CourtNevada Supreme Court

DecidedApril 21, 1983

DocketNo. 14339

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 661 P.2d 1292 (Ramey 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

Ramey v. State, 661 P.2d 1292, 99 Nev. 264, 1983 Nev. LEXIS 429 (Neb. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

[265]*265OPINION

Per Curiam:

Under the rationale of North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), appellant entered a plea of guilty to one count of assault with a deadly weapon. He later moved to withdraw the plea on several grounds, including his lack of understanding of the consequences of his plea. The district court denied the motion and sentenced appellant to six years in prison. Appellant now contends that his guilty plea must be set aside because the record does not affirmatively show it was knowingly and voluntarily entered. Specifically, appellant argues that the record does not affirmatively show he understood the consequences of his plea, including the range of possible punishments. We agree.

The court below did not canvass appellant to determine whether he understood the range of possible punishments that could flow from his plea, and the record is utterly devoid of any indication that appellant understood the consequences of pleading guilty. Thus, the record does not affirmatively show the plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered, and the plea must therefore be set aside. See Hanley v. State, 97 Nev. 130, 624 P.2d 1387 (1981); see also NRS 174.035(1).

The judgment of conviction is reversed. The plea of guilty is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

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

[265]*265OPINION

Per Curiam:

Under the rationale of North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), appellant entered a plea of guilty to one count of assault with a deadly weapon. He later moved to withdraw the plea on several grounds, including his lack of understanding of the consequences of his plea. The district court denied the motion and sentenced appellant to six years in prison. Appellant now contends that his guilty plea must be set aside because the record does not affirmatively show it was knowingly and voluntarily entered. Specifically, appellant argues that the record does not affirmatively show he understood the consequences of his plea, including the range of possible punishments. We agree.

The court below did not canvass appellant to determine whether he understood the range of possible punishments that could flow from his plea, and the record is utterly devoid of any indication that appellant understood the consequences of pleading guilty. Thus, the record does not affirmatively show the plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered, and the plea must therefore be set aside. See Hanley v. State, 97 Nev. 130, 624 P.2d 1387 (1981); see also NRS 174.035(1).

The judgment of conviction is reversed. The plea of guilty is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

661 P.2d 1292, 99 Nev. 264, 1983 Nev. LEXIS 429, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramey-v-state-nev-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack