Hatcher (Terrence) v. State C/W 64225 ( 2014 )

 STIPULATE to treatment as a LARGE HABITUAL CRIMINAL pursuant
to NRS 207.010." 1 As a result of counsel's deficient performance, Hatcher
claims that his plea was not entered knowingly, voluntarily, or
intelligently. We disagree. 2
"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 a hearing, heard argument from
Hatcher's counsel, and denied the motion. The district court stated
"Where was no indication" that Hatcher "was out of it from any kind of
medication" during his arraignment and plea canvass. The district court
also found that the terms of the plea agreement, including specifically the
provision detailing the stipulation in question, were "explained to him at
length." Our review of the record reveals that Hatcher 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); Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. , 132 S.
'At his sentencing hearing, Hatcher was adjudicated as a small
habitual criminal and ordered to serve a prison term of 72-240 months.
2 Hatcher also claims that his plea was invalid because "counsel
failed to file essential motions or filed motions late." Hatcher, however,
offers no argument or citation to any legal authority 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) ("It is appellant's responsibility to present
relevant authority and cogent argument; issues not so presented need not
be addressed by this court.").
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
Ct. 1376, 1384 (2012). Therefore, because Hatcher 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), 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.
Pickering
Parragnirre
J.
Saitta
cc: Hon. Carolyn Ellsworth, District Judge
Creed & Giles, Ltd.
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(01 1947A ctlegjo