Wilkins (Kenneth) v. State

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: July 22, 2013
• Docket: 61920
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

The district court conducted an evidentiary hearing at which Wilkins' counsel testified that Wilkins did not ask him to file an appeal. The district court denied Wilkins' appeal-deprivation claim after finding that counsel's testimony was credible. See Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 248, 254, 71 P.3d 503, 507 (2003) (counsel is ineffective if he fails to file a direct appeal only if "a defendant has requested or expressed a desire for a direct appeal"). And the district court denied Wilkins' remaining claims, concluding that no constitutional law prohibits an arrest warrant authorizing a nighttime arrest and therefore Wilkins failed to support his assertion that counsel would have been successful had he challenged the constitutionality of the arrest warrant, see generally Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740, 754 (1984) (suggesting approval of nighttime arrests pursuant to a warrant); Sanchez v. State, 103 Nev. 166, 169, 734 P.2d 726, 728 (1987); see also NRS 171.136(2)(a) (authorizing a nighttime arrest for a misdemeanor offense "[u]pon the direction of a magistrate, endorsed upon the warrant"), the award of restitution did not create a double recovery, see Martinez v. State, 115 Nev. 9, 12, 974 P.2d 133, 135 (1999), and Wilkins did not prove any other defects with the restitution amount. We conclude that the district court did not err by denying these claims. Having considered Wilkins' contentions and concluded that no relief is warranted, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

,J. Hardesty

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) I947A cc: Hon. Connie J. Steinheimer, District Judge Janet S. Bessemer Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A ) s