Hernandez (Andres) v. State ( 2014 )

 the benefit of the plea bargain due to an immigration hold and eventual
deportation. We disagree with Hernandez's contention. 2
A district court may grant a post-conviction motion to
withdraw a guilty plea in order to "correct manifest injustice." NRS
176.165; Rubio v. State, 124 Nev. 1032, 1039-40, 194 P.3d 1224, 1228-29
(2008). Here, the district court conducted a hearing on the motion, heard
arguments from counsel, and determined that Hernandez's guilty plea
"was knowingly and voluntarily made and given the totality of the
circumstances related to [his] subsequent actions since his sentencing, the
Court does not believe manifest injustice results by not permitting him to
withdraw his guilty plea." In its written order, the district court also
found that Hernandez's manifest-injustice argument was barred by the
equitable doctrine of laches. See Hart v. State, 116 Nev. 558, 563-65, 1
P.3d 969, 972-73 (2000) NCIonsideration of the equitable doctrine of
laches is necessary in determining whether a defendant has shown
'manifest injustice' that would permit withdrawal of a plea after
sentencing."). Most importantly, our review of the record reveals that the
provision in the guilty plea agreement allowing Hernandez to withdraw
his plea to the felony and enter a plea to a gross misdemeanor upon the
successful completion of probation was no longer part of the plea deal after
he was arrested three times during the time period between the entry of
his guilty plea and the sentencing hearing. Therefore, we conclude that
the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hernandez's post-
2 Hernandez also claims that he "was misinformed about the
immigration consequences of a guilty plea in this case." Hernandez offers
no argument on appeal in support of this claim; therefore, we need not
address it. See Maresca v. State, 103 Nev. 669, 673, 748 P.2d 3, 6 (1987).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
conviction motion to withdraw his guilty plea, see Bryant v. State, 102
Nev. 268, 272, 721 P.2d 364, 368 (1986), and we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 3
cc: Hon. Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, District Judge
Bush & Levy, LLC
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
3 The fast track statement does not comply with NRAP 3C(h)(1) and
NRAP 32(a)(4) because the text in the body of the briefs is not double-
spaced. Counsel for Hernandez is 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
3
(0) 1947A citgejr,