Nolen (Felix) v. State ( 2013 )

 circumstances. State v. Freese, 116 Nev. 1097, 1105, 13 P.3d 442, 448
(2000); Bryant, 102 Nev. at 271, 721 P.2d at 367.
First, appellant claimed that his counsel failed to adequately
explain the consequences of his guilty plea, particularly the fact that his
offense could be considered to be a felony and not a gross misdemeanor. 2
Appellant failed to demonstrate his plea was invalid. Appellant entered a
guilty plea to felony coercion (sexually-motivated). Appellant was
personally canvassed about his plea to a felony offense, and appellant
affirmatively acknowledged that he was entering a plea to a felony offense.
Second, appellant claimed that his plea was invalid because
his counsel failed to explain the nature of an Alford plea. 3 Appellant
failed to demonstrate that his plea was invalid. The requirements of an
Alford plea were explained in the written plea agreement, which appellant
acknowledged having discussed with counsel. The district court further
explained an Alford plea to appellant when he questioned the factual
allegations recited by the State during the plea canvass. Appellant
2 To the extent that appellant claimed that his responses at the plea
canvass were not genuine because he was told by counsel to agree with the
judge, appellant failed to demonstrate that his plea was invalid.
Appellant had ample opportunity to inform the district court during the
plea canvass that he did not wish to enter a plea to a felony offense or ask
questions. Appellant affirmatively acknowledged that his plea was freely
and voluntarily entered. Appellant's allegation of his own lack of candor
with the district court was not sufficient to overcome the other evidence in
the record that the plea was knowingly, freely and voluntarily entered.
3North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) I947A
; goiummegimammila12,2520'd, Ai ';g-RT:AAEWPW74-&-n I
affirmatively indicated that he was entering the plea because it was in his
best interests.
Third, appellant claimed that his counsel failed to adequately
communicate with him, particularly given appellant's illiteracy and
comprehension difficulties. Appellant failed to demonstrate that his plea
was invalid. Appellant's counsel informed the court about appellant's
difficulties and indicated that he had read the guilty plea agreement to
appellant and he had discussed everything in the written plea agreement
with appellant. Appellant affirmatively acknowledged that the plea
agreement was read to him and that he understood it. Appellant failed to
identify how further communication would have altered his decision to
enter a guilty plea. See Kirksey v. State, 112 Nev. 980, 987-88, 923 P.2d
1102, 1107 (1996); see also Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985).
Fourth, appellant claimed that he was innocent of the offense.
Appellant entered an Alford plea in this case, maintaining his innocence
but acknowledging the strength of the State's case and the threat of
greater punishment if the matter proceeded to trial. Under these
circumstances, appellant's claim that he was innocent is "essentially
academic" and cannot be the basis for withdrawing the plea. 4 Hargrove v.
State, 100 Nev. 498, 503, 686 P.2d 222, 226 (1984).
Appellant also claimed that his counsel failed to review the
presentence investigation report with him, his waiver of the preliminary
4Appellant
further failed to support this claim with specific facts
demonstrating that he was entitled to relief.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) I947A
‘'3!MiTelitIMIEERffl I IM" W.:•,.W.&k.11.11-,*74M.N7YW ,KICYS .
hearing was improper because the transcript indicates that appellant's
response was inaudible, and he was not given warnings pursuant to
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). These claims do not challenge
the validity of the guilty plea, and thus, are improperly raised in a motion
to withdraw a guilty plea. Hart v. State, 116 Nev. 558, 564, 1 P.3d 969,
973 (2000). Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 5
/ J.
Hardesty
pParraguirre
J.
cc: Hon. Doug Smith, District Judge
Felix Nolen
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
5We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in
proper person to the clerk of this court in this matter, and we conclude
that no relief based upon those submissions is warranted. To the extent
that appellant has attempted to present claims or facts in those
submissions which were not previously presented in the proceedings
below, we have declined to consider them in the first instance.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A