Carley (Elizabeth) v. State ( 2015 )

 clear showing of an abuse of discretion." Riker v. State, 111 Nev. 1316,
1322, 905 P.2d 706, 710 (1995) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Appellant contends that she was coerced into the plea because
her counsel told her that she would lose if she went to trial and her
codefendant's counsel informed her that he would blame the offenses on
her if she went to trial. The district court conducted an evidentiary
hearing, noted that appellant had denied any coercion during the plea
canvass, and found that her claim of coercion was belied by the record and
her plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily. The written plea
agreement and transcripts of the plea canvass and evidentiary hearing
support the district court's finding that appellant's plea was voluntary.
See Crawford, 117 Nev. at 722, 30 P.3d at 1126 ("A thorough plea canvass
coupled with a detailed, consistent, written plea agreement supports a
finding that the defendant entered the plea voluntarily, knowingly, and
intelligently."). Thus, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion by denying appellant's motion to withdraw her guilty plea.
Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
,
J.
Parraguirre
J.
Douglas
C hita
Cherry
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(C9 1.947A e
cc: Hon. Douglas Smith, District Judge
JZS Law Group
Roy L. Nelson, III
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) I947A