Sudberry (Dennis) v. Warden ( 2014 )

 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