the court's factual findings if supported by substantial evidence and not
clearly erroneous but review the court's application of the law to those
facts de novo. Lader v. Warden, 121 Nev. 682, 686, 120 P.3d 1164, 1166
(2005).
First, appellant claimed that counsel was ineffective for failing
to call or locate his alibi witness. Appellant failed to support this claim
with specific facts that, if true, entitled him to relief. Hargrove v. State,
100 Nev. 498, 502-03, 686 P.2d 222, 225 (1984). Therefore, the district
court did not err in denying this claim.
Next, he claimed that counsel was ineffective for coercing him
to plead guilty. He claimed that he only had a ninth-grade education; and
he always told counsel he was innocent and did not want to take a deal.
Further, he claimed that counsel threatened to withdraw from his case if
he did not take the deal Appellant failed to demonstrate that he was
coerced. Appellant was thoroughly canvassed regarding his plea. He
indicated he read and understood the plea agreement and its terms, and
he indicated to the district court that he could read and write. He also
informed the district court he was not coerced into pleading guilty and
that no one made him any promises regarding his plea. Moreover,
appellant received a significant benefit by pleading guilty. He was
originally facing seventeen counts. By pleading guilty, he was only
convicted of three and the State agreed to recommend concurrent time
between the counts, which he received. Further, the State agreed to
dismiss the charges in case number 12F01310X. Therefore, appellant
failed to demonstrate that he would not have pleaded guilty and would
have insisted on going to trial. Accordingly, the district court did not err
in denying this claim.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
10) 1947A e
Next, appellant claimed that his plea was not knowingly
entered because he did not receive the sentence explained to him by
counsel. He claimed that counsel told him the maximum time he would
receive was a sentence of 48 to 120 months in prison imposed on count
two. He claims that the prison is calculating his sentence to be 48 to 120
months plus a consecutive sentence of 24 to 60 months. The latter term is
the consecutive enhancement sentence imposed in count one.
Appellant received the sentence agreed to in the guilty plea
agreement. The guilty plea agreement stated he would receive two
consecutive sentences of 24 to 60 months for count one, 48 to 120 months
on count two to run concurrent to count one, and 28 to 70 months on count
three to run concurrent to the other counts. 2 Therefore, appellant's plea
was knowingly entered and the district court did not err in denying this
claim. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
J.
2 Ifthe prison is calculating his sentence incorrectly, then appellant
can file a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging
the computation of time served. See NRS 34.724(1).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A ara*P
cc: Hon. Stefany Miley, District Judge
Sean Rico Muse
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) I947A