First, appellant claimed that his trial counsel failed to file a
motion to compel discovery. Appellant failed to demonstrate that his
counsel's performance was deficient or that he was prejudiced. The State
maintained an open-file policy. Appellant failed to identify with any
specificity discovery that was withheld by the State or that should have
been sought by counsel. Appellant failed to demonstrate that there was a
reasonable probability that he would not have pleaded guilty and would
have insisted on going to trial had his counsel filed a motion to compel
discovery. Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not err in
denying this claim.
Second, appellant claimed that his trial counsel failed to meet
with him and coerced his guilty plea due to the lack of preparation and
communication. Appellant failed to demonstrate that his counsel's
performance was deficient or that he was prejudiced. During the plea
canvass, appellant acknowledged that he had discussed his plea
agreement with his counsel, that he understood the plea agreement and
had no questions, and that his plea was not the product of threats or
coercion. Appellant failed to demonstrate that further meetings with
counsel and further preparation would have had a reasonable probability
of altering his decision to enter a guilty plea. Therefore, we conclude that
the district court did not err in denying this claim.
Third, appellant claimed that his trial counsel told him he
would receive a sentence of two to five years, that other charges would be
dropped, and that his bail would be reduced. Appellant failed to
demonstrate that his trial counsel's performance was deficient or that he
was prejudiced. Appellant was personally canvassed about the potential
sentence and appellant indicated that he understood that he could receive
a sentence of up to ten years for the battery charge and a sentence of five
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
to twenty years if he were adjudicated a small habitual criminal.
Pursuant to the plea agreement, the State retained the right to argue for
small habitual criminal treatment but agreed to the dismissal of other
charges. The plea agreement does not contain any promise of a bail
reduction. 2 Appellant affirmatively acknowledged that no promises
beyond those contained in the plea agreement were made to him.
Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying this
claim. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
J.
Hardesty
p cp.7.01.
Parraguirre
J.
J.
cc: Hon. James M. Bixler, District Judge
Alton Walker, Jr.
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
2 Counsel unsuccessfully litigated a post-plea motion for reduction of
bail.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
4.