Julian (Quincy) v. State ( 2013 )

 advising him of alternative pleas; and (4) counsel advised him to plead
guilty even though there was a defense to his case and he had a conflict
with counsel.
After the imposition of a sentence, the district court will allow
the withdrawal of a guilty plea only to correct a manifest injustice. NRS
176.165. "A guilty plea will be considered properly accepted if the trial
court sufficiently canvassed the defendant to determine whether the
defendant knowingly and intelligently entered into the plea." Baal v.
State, 106 Nev. 69, 72, 787 P.2d 391, 394 (1990). A guilty plea is
presumptively valid, and appellant carries the burden of establishing that
his plea was not entered knowingly and intelligently. See Hubbard v.
State, 110 Nev. 671, 675, 877 P.2d 519, 521 (1994). This court will not
reverse a district court's determination concerning the validity of a plea
absent a clear abuse of discretion. Id. We conclude that Julian has failed
to meet his burden of establishing that his plea was entered involuntarily
and unknowingly or that a manifest injustice entitles him to relief.
Based upon the district court's observations during the plea
canvass, Julian's responses, and counsel's testimony, the district court
found that when he pleaded guilty, Julian was not suffering from any
mental illness. Rather, the district court determined that there was no
evidence in the record to support Julian's claim that he had a diagnosed
mental illness, save for Julian's own pronouncement. Considering
counsel's testimony and a letter from Dr. Martha Mahaffey, the district
court further found that Julian was malingering during the period
between his arrest and his entry of plea. Additionally our review of the
record on appeal reveals that Julian initiated the change of plea and that
he was thoroughly canvassed by the district court, specifically concerning
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
'4EDINIIIIIIMMENIIIIIIMMPA I PEWASTr.:P 'TT - • 'i,KM6e6i;--
any possible side effects of his medication and any possible "voices"
affecting his decision-making process.
With regard to Julian's claims about counsel, the district court
found that, based upon the testimony at the hearing, the competency
reports, and the grand jury transcript, a plea of guilty but mentally ill or a
defense of insanity was not available to Julian. The district court further
found that counsel extended considerable effort to obtain the best possible
offer from the prosecutor and that it was Julian who rejected a joint
sentencing recommendation and who wanted to take his chances with a
free-to-argue sentencing. The record does not demonstrate any conflict of
interest between Julian and his counsel, only that Julian filed a request
for a new attorney because his had called him a coward.
Having reviewed the record and for the reasons set forth
above, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
denying Julian's post-conviction motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
ibbons
Ae--s ,J.
Douglas Saitta
cc: Hon. Connie J. Steinheimer, District Judge
Story Law Group
Attorney General/Carson City
Washoe County District Attorney
Washoe District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
welegra-zw-mmArang,,,,