Silvey (John) v. State

Nevada Supreme Court

Silvey (John) v. State

DecidedJune 11, 2014

Docket64056

StatusUnpublished

This text of Silvey (John) v. State (Silvey (John) 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

Silvey (John) v. State, (Neb. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

discretion." Riker v. State, 111 Nev. 1316, 1322, 905 P.2d 706, 710 (1995) (quoting Bryant v. State, 102 Nev. 268, 272, 721 P.2d 364, 368 (1986)); see Crawford v. State, 117 Nev. 718, 721-22, 30 P.3d 1123, 1125-26 (2001) (observing that the defendant bears the burden of showing that a plea was not entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently). In support of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, appellant presented a handwritten letter explaining that his extended solitary confinement caused him to be susceptible to "subtle coercive tactics and maneuvering by the Churchill County Sheriffs Office, implemented in concert with the Churchill County DA's Office 'Fast track' rhetoric." No other evidence or argument was presented to the district court. Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by not inquiring into the state of his mental health during the plea canvass, including the psychological effects of incarceration. While the record indicates that appellant experienced psychological problems, he has not adequately explained how those problems resulted in an involuntary guilty plea, and he presented the district court with nothing more than a bare allegation that his stay in solitary confinement rendered his plea involuntary. 2 Although the district court did not expressly query appellant about his mental state, appellant indicated that he understood the plea agreement, the nature of the charge, and the consequences of his plea, and that he was not coerced or threatened into pleading guilty. Because we conclude

2 Thedistrict court found appellant competent to stand trial approximately 13 months before he entered his guilty plea.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (CO 1947A that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant's presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea, we ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

Poem ay J. Pickering

J. J. Parraguirre Saitta

cc: Hon. Thomas L. Stockard, District Judge Hon. Robert E. Estes, Senior Judge David Kalo Neidert Churchill County District Attorney/Fallon Attorney General/Carson City Churchill County Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A e

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

discretion." Riker v. State, 111 Nev. 1316, 1322, 905 P.2d 706, 710 (1995) (quoting Bryant v. State, 102 Nev. 268, 272, 721 P.2d 364, 368 (1986)); see Crawford v. State, 117 Nev. 718, 721-22, 30 P.3d 1123, 1125-26 (2001) (observing that the defendant bears the burden of showing that a plea was not entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently). In support of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, appellant presented a handwritten letter explaining that his extended solitary confinement caused him to be susceptible to "subtle coercive tactics and maneuvering by the Churchill County Sheriffs Office, implemented in concert with the Churchill County DA's Office 'Fast track' rhetoric." No other evidence or argument was presented to the district court. Appellant argues that the district court abused its discretion by not inquiring into the state of his mental health during the plea canvass, including the psychological effects of incarceration. While the record indicates that appellant experienced psychological problems, he has not adequately explained how those problems resulted in an involuntary guilty plea, and he presented the district court with nothing more than a bare allegation that his stay in solitary confinement rendered his plea involuntary. 2 Although the district court did not expressly query appellant about his mental state, appellant indicated that he understood the plea agreement, the nature of the charge, and the consequences of his plea, and that he was not coerced or threatened into pleading guilty. Because we conclude

2 Thedistrict court found appellant competent to stand trial approximately 13 months before he entered his guilty plea.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (CO 1947A that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant's presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea, we ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

Poem ay J. Pickering

J. J. Parraguirre Saitta

cc: Hon. Thomas L. Stockard, District Judge Hon. Robert E. Estes, Senior Judge David Kalo Neidert Churchill County District Attorney/Fallon Attorney General/Carson City Churchill County Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A e

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Silvey (John) v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/silvey-john-v-state-nev-2014.

Opinion

J. J. Parraguirre Saitta

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack