Colucci (Edward) v. State ( 2014 )

 by his counsel." See Ford v. Warden, 111 Nev. 872, 884, 901 P.2d 123, 130
(1995) (holding that an appellant "cannot change [his] theory underlying
an assignment of error on appeal"). We conclude that Colucci is not
entitled to relief
"District courts may grant a motion to withdraw a guilty plea
prior to sentencing for any substantial, fair, and just reason." Crawford v.
State, 117 Nev. 718, 721, 30 P.3d 1123, 1125 (2001); see NRS 176.165.
Here, the district court conducted an evidentiary hearing and heard
testimony from Colucci and his former counsel, John Momot. Momot
testified that he met 57 times with Colucci prior to the entry of his plea
and provided documentation indicating that he reviewed multiple plea
offers by the State with him. The district court specifically found "that
[what] we saw today really emphasize[s] the care that was taken by Mr.
Momot's office to go over what the charges were and what he would be
pleading to." The district court determined that "after listening to all the
evidence" and reviewing the plea agreement memorandum and oral plea
canvass, "it does appear to me that this plea was knowingly and
voluntarily entered." See Molina v. State, 120 Nev. 185, 191, 87 P.3d 533,
537-38 (2004) ("A district court must examine the totality of the
circumstances to determine whether a defendant entered his plea
voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently."). Our review of the record
reveals that Colucci failed to either provide a substantial, fair, and just
reason which required the withdrawal of his plea, see Crawford, 117 Nev.
at 721, 30 P.3d at 1125, or demonstrate that counsel's performance was
deficient, see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984); see
also Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. , 132 S. Ct. 1399, 1405-06 (2012);
Latter v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 132 S. Ct. 1376, 1384 (2012).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A 'e
Therefore, because Colucci failed to satisfy his burden and prove that his
plea was invalid, see Molina, 120 Nev. at 190, 87 P.3d at 537, we conclude
that 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).
Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
/
Hardesty
cc: Hon. Elissa F. Cadish, District Judge
Clark County Public Defender
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A Algetrn