Sudberry (Dennis) v. Warden

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: December 11, 2014
• Docket: 65859
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

give deference to the district court's factual findings regarding ineffective assistance of counsel if they are supported by substantial evidence and not clearly wrong but review the district court's application of the law to those facts de novo. Lader v. Warden, 121 Nev. 682, 686, 120 P.3d 1164, 1166 (2005). At an evidentiary hearing on the petition, Sudberry claimed that counsel told him there was a plea offer but never said what the offer was. He also argued that he never received the offer in writing. Both trial counsel testified that the plea offer was communicated to Sudberry, both orally and in writing, and that Sudberry was adamant about refusing any offer that was not a dismissal of all charges. A letter hand-delivered by counsel to Sudberry, spelling out the terms of the plea offer, was admitted into evidence. The district court found that Sudberry's testimony was not credible and that the testimony of prior counsel was credible. Because the district court's factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and are not clearly wrong, we conclude that Sudberry has failed to demonstrate deficiency and therefore he is not entitled to relief on this claim. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

J. Pickering Saitta

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (D) I947A are. cc: Hon. Janet J. Berry, District Judge Scott W. Edwards Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3