Wilson (Jeffrey) v. State

Nevada Supreme Court

Wilson (Jeffrey) v. State

DecidedJune 12, 2014

Docket63944

StatusUnpublished

This text of Wilson (Jeffrey) v. State (Wilson (Jeffrey) 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

Wilson (Jeffrey) v. State, (Neb. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

motion "for any substantial, fair, and just reason" Crawford v. State, 117 Nev. 718, 721, 30 P.3d 1123, 1125 (2001). "On appeal from a district court's denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, [we] will presume that the lower court correctly assessed the validity of the plea, and we will not reverse the lower court's determination absent a clear showing of an abuse of discretion." Riker v. State, 111 Nev. 1316, 1322, 905 P.2d 706, 710 (1995) (internal quotation marks omitted). After entering his Alford plea, Wilson sought to withdraw from the plea on grounds that (1) "counsel expressed unwillingness to proceed with [his] desire to go to trial," (2) he was intoxicated and suffering withdrawal symptoms during the plea canvass, (3) he was actually innocent, and (4) defense counsel was not conflict-free at the time of the plea. The district court appointed new counsel to determine whether grounds existed for a motion to withdraw the Alford plea. New counsel determined that a motion to withdraw based on medication- induced incompetence would be frivolous, advised Wilson that he lacked sufficient legal grounds to withdraw the plea, and asked the district court to place the matter back on the calendar so that Wilson could present his motion to the court before sentencing. The State filed an opposition to Wilson's motion to withdraw, the district court placed the matter back on the calendar, and Wilson had an opportunity to address the court. The district court reviewed the totality of the record and found no basis to support a motion to withdraw the Alford plea. The record on appeal supports the district court's factual finding, and we conclude that Wilson has failed to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion by denying his presentence motion to withdraw his Alford plea. See Molina v. State, 120 Nev. 185, 190, 87 P.3d

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (()) I 947A e 533, 537 (2004) (defendant bears the burden of proving that plea is invalid). Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

c-CWWL56)- Parraguirre Saitta

cc: Hon. David B. Barker, District Judge Yampolsky, Ltd. Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A 9a4

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

motion "for any substantial, fair, and just reason" Crawford v. State, 117 Nev. 718, 721, 30 P.3d 1123, 1125 (2001). "On appeal from a district court's denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, [we] will presume that the lower court correctly assessed the validity of the plea, and we will not reverse the lower court's determination absent a clear showing of an abuse of discretion." Riker v. State, 111 Nev. 1316, 1322, 905 P.2d 706, 710 (1995) (internal quotation marks omitted). After entering his Alford plea, Wilson sought to withdraw from the plea on grounds that (1) "counsel expressed unwillingness to proceed with [his] desire to go to trial," (2) he was intoxicated and suffering withdrawal symptoms during the plea canvass, (3) he was actually innocent, and (4) defense counsel was not conflict-free at the time of the plea. The district court appointed new counsel to determine whether grounds existed for a motion to withdraw the Alford plea. New counsel determined that a motion to withdraw based on medication- induced incompetence would be frivolous, advised Wilson that he lacked sufficient legal grounds to withdraw the plea, and asked the district court to place the matter back on the calendar so that Wilson could present his motion to the court before sentencing. The State filed an opposition to Wilson's motion to withdraw, the district court placed the matter back on the calendar, and Wilson had an opportunity to address the court. The district court reviewed the totality of the record and found no basis to support a motion to withdraw the Alford plea. The record on appeal supports the district court's factual finding, and we conclude that Wilson has failed to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion by denying his presentence motion to withdraw his Alford plea. See Molina v. State, 120 Nev. 185, 190, 87 P.3d

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (()) I 947A e 533, 537 (2004) (defendant bears the burden of proving that plea is invalid). Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

c-CWWL56)- Parraguirre Saitta

cc: Hon. David B. Barker, District Judge Yampolsky, Ltd. Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A 9a4

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Wilson (Jeffrey) v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-jeffrey-v-state-nev-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack