Candelas (Jose) v. State ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                              First, Candelas argues that his plea was involuntarily given
    because he was coerced by counsel, who led Candelas to believe that there
    was no other alternative and spoke to him in a loud, emphatic manner. At
    a hearing on the motion, the district court stated that it had reviewed the
    plea agreement and the transcript of the plea canvass and recalled
    Candelas's ability to engage with counsel and the district court. The
    district court found that there was nothing to indicate that Candelas felt
    threatened or coerced during the proceedings. The totality of the
    circumstances supports the district court's determination, and we conclude
    that the district court did not abuse its discretion.
    Second, Candelas contends that his plea was unknowingly
    given because he was not advised by counsel or the district court regarding
    possible lesser-included offenses. This claim was not raised below, and we
    need not consider it in the first instance on appeal. See Davis v. State, 
    107 Nev. 600
    , 606, 
    817 P.2d 1169
    , 1173 (1991), overruled on other grounds by
    Means v. State, 
    120 Nev. 1001
    , 1012-13, 
    103 P.3d 25
    , 33 (2004). We note,
    however, that with regard to the district court, Candelas's claim is belied
    by the record. Despite the fact that there is no requirement for the district
    court to canvass a defendant about possible lesser-included offenses, see
    Neffley v. Warden,    
    89 Nev. 573
    , 574, 
    516 P.2d 1403
    , 1404 (1973), the
    district court did converse with Candelas about lesser-included offenses
    and informed him that he would not be convicted of both attempted
    murder with the use of a deadly weapon and battery with the use of a
    deadly weapon because the district court viewed the latter as a lesser-
    included offense. As to Candelas's claim concerning counsel, we note that
    he has failed to demonstrate prejudice, pursuant to            Strickland v.
    Washington, 
    466 U.S. 668
    , 691-96 (1984), because he was informed about
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    2
    (0) 1947A
    possible lesser-included offenses by the district court and fails to
    demonstrate a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's alleged failure
    to advise him about lesser-included offenses, he would not have pleaded
    guilty and would have insisted on continuing with the trial.
    Third, Candelas argues that his plea was unknowingly given
    because he was denied exculpatory information regarding a key witness
    for the State. After he pleaded, Candelas discovered that the key witness
    may have been involved in a crime with the victim in his case and made a
    discovery request to ascertain whether the State had made any immunity
    deals with the key witness. At a hearing on the motion, the State
    represented that, while it knew nothing about any uncharged crimes
    involving the key witness, the victim had not been charged at the time of
    trial and therefore there would have been no impeachment value.
    Candelas fails to demonstrate the district court abused its discretion.
    Fourth, Candelas contends that his plea was involuntary
    because the district court improperly participated in plea negotiations.
    Relying on Cripps v. State, 
    122 Nev. 764
    , 770-71, 
    137 P.3d 1187
    , 1191
    (2006) (stating that the district court should not be involved in the plea
    negotiation process), Candelas claims that the district court not only
    emphasized that the negotiated charge was probationable but also spoke
    on behalf of the defense. He further claims that the district court's
    unusual accommodations, providing statutory material and extra time for
    negotiations, constituted an endorsement of the negotiations and that
    court staff and a corrections officer pressured him to accept the plea offer.
    Candelas fails to demonstrate that the district court participated in the
    formulation of the plea agreement. The district court answered Candelas's
    questions about the sentencing parameters and refused to commit to any
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    3
    (0) 1947A (.10(0.•
    particular sentencing structure. As for any additional time and statutory
    materials provided, the district court provided these at the parties'
    request. We discern no error by the district court in this regard.
    Having considered Candelas's contentions and concluded that
    no relief is warranted, we
    ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
    /       St;                 ,J.
    Hardesty
    J.
    itino,: 277
    cc: Hon. David B. Barker, District Judge
    Hua Ferguson Law Offices
    Law Offices of John P. Parris
    Attorney General/Carson City
    Clark County District Attorney
    Eighth District Court Clerk
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    4
    (0) 1947A