Green (Daniel) v. Warden ( 2014 )

 Green might have and Green did not utilize this resource. And, although
limited because of Green's incarceration while preparing for trial, Green
was provided access to a law library and legal materials and was given
adequate supplies, such as paper and pencils, necessary for preparing his
defense. Finally, although the use of restraints may have frustrated
Green and interfered with his ability to take notes when reviewing
evidence and discovery with standby counsel, the use of the restraints was
necessary due to Green's conduct and threats of violence and there is no
indication that their use precluded Green from reviewing the materials or
taking notes.
Next, Green claims that the district court erred by finding that
his plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered. Green
asserts that he felt compelled to enter the plea and his plea is invalid
because he had no reasonable opportunity to prepare or conduct any
effective defense.
"A guilty plea is presumptively valid, and fa petitioner has]
the burden of establishing that the plea was not entered knowingly and
intelligently." McConnell v. State, 125 Nev. 243, 250, 212 P.3d 307, 312
(2009). The district court must look to the totality of the circumstances
when reviewing the validity of a guilty plea. Id. We "presume that the
lower court correctly assessed the validity of the plea, and we will not
reverse the lower court's determination absent a clear showing of an abuse
of discretion." Bryant v. State, 102 Nev. 268, 272, 721 P.2d 364, 368
(1986).
The district court conducted an evidentiary hearing and found
that the record belied Green's allegations regarding his plea. Green
represented himself and actively participated in the plea negotiations. At
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) I94Th
the plea canvass, Green discussed the charges he was facing, the factual
allegations, and the potential penalties associated with each charge. The
court also found that Green was given adequate access to resources to help
prepare his defense and that Green's failure to utilize those resources did
not render his plea involuntary. We conclude that the district court's
findings are supported by the record and Green failed to demonstrate that
his plea was invalid. Therefore, we affirm the denial of this claim.
Finally, Green claims that the district court erred by finding
that he received the effective assistance of standby counsel. He alleges
that standby counsel only acted as a runner of evidence and did not
provide him with legal advice, which left him without reasonable access to
defense services. The district court determined that because Green
waived his right to counsel and chose to represent himself, he did not have
a constitutional right to the effective assistance of standby counsel. See
McConnell, 125 Nev. at 252, 212 P.3d at 314. The court further found that
Green failed to establish that his standby counsel were ineffective. See
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984) (establishing two-part
test for evaluating ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims); Warden v.
Lyons, 100 Nev. 430, 432-33, 683 P.2d 504, 505 (1984) (adopting test in
Strickland). The court determined that standby counsel made sure that
Green had access to what he needed to prepare his defense and Green's
failure to ask questions or seek advice from the standby counsel charged
with answering such questions did not render standby counsel's
performance deficient. Finally, the court determined that Green failed to
demonstrate prejudice because he failed to demonstrate that he would not
have pleaded guilty and/or the outcome at sentencing would have been
different absent the alleged deficiencies. The district court's findings are
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) I 947A e
supported by substantial evidence, are not clearly erroneous, and not
incorrect as a matter of law. See Lader v. Warden, 121 Nev. 682, 686, 120
P.3d 1164, 1166 (2005). We, therefore, affirm the denial of this claim.
Having concluded that Green's claims lack merit, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
Pickering
J.
Saitta
cc: Hon. Thomas L. Stockard, District Judge
Hon. Robert E. Estes, Senior Judge
Law Offices of John P. Schlegelmilch, Ltd.
Evenson Law Office
Churchill County District Attorney/Fallon
Attorney General/Carson City
Churchill County Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1.947A e