Chorzempa (Terrance) v. State ( 2013 )

 argument at the hearing and submitted the matter on the briefs. The
district court noted the "unusually thorough canvass" conducted by the
hearing master at Chorzempa's arraignment, where he was properly
advised and indicated that he understood his eligibility for probation and
the district court's sentencing discretion. The district court also noted that
Chorzempa was properly advised by the plea agreement memorandum.
We conclude that Chorzempa failed to satisfy his burden and prove that
his plea was invalid, see Molina v. State, 120 Nev. 185, 190, 87 P.3d 533,
537 (2004), and the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying
his motion, Johnson v. State, 123 Nev. 139, 144, 159 P.3d 1096, 1098
(2007) ("This court will not reverse a district court's determination
concerning the validity of a plea absent a clear abuse of discretion.").
Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 2
Gibbons
2 The fast track statement and reply fail to comply with NRAP
3C(h)(1) and NRAP 32(a)(4) because they do not contain 1-inch margins on
all four sides and the footnote in the fast track statement is not "in the
same size and typeface as the body of the brief," NRAP 32(a)(5). The fast
track response does not comply with NRAP 3C(h)(1) and NRAP 32(a)(4)
because the text is not double-spaced. Counsel for the parties are
cautioned that the failure to comply with the briefing requirements in the
future may result in the imposition of sanctions. See NRAP 3C(n).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
cc: Hon. Jerome T. Tao, District Judge
Herbert Sachs
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A