Fugate (Matthew) v. State

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
MATTHEW DAVID FUGATE, No. 82044
Appellant,
vs. FILE
THE STATE OF NEVADA,
Respondent.
ORDER AFFIRMING IN PART,
REVERSING IN PART AND REMANDING
This is an appeal from a district court order denying a
postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Second Judicial District
Court, Washoe County; Elliott A. Sattler, Judge. Appellant Matthew David
Fugate argues that the district court erred in denying his petition as
procedurally barred. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.
Fugate was convicted pursuant to a guilty plea. In the first and
third claims of his petition for postconviction habeas relief, Fugate alleged
that counsel provided ineffective assistance during the sentencing hearing.
The district court concluded that the claims were barred under NRS
34.810(1)(a) because Fugate pleaded guilty and the claims were "not based
upon an allegation that the plea was involuntarily or unknowingly entered
or that the plea was entered without effective assistance of counsel." In
rejecting Fugate's petition, the district court did not have the benefit of our
recent decision in Gonzales v. State, 137 Nev., Adv. Op. 40, 492 P.3d 556(2021). There, we clarified that a petitioner who pleaded guilty may allege
that he or she received ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) I947A z--oiti7- 0
• . ,
because that claim could not have been raised before entering the plea and
barring such a claim would "violate the spirit of our habeas statute and the
public policy of this state." Id. at 562. Consistent with Gonzales, the district
court should reach the merits of Fugate's two claims that counsel provided
ineffective assistance at sentencing.
In his fourth claim, Fugate argued that counsel should have
investigated a favorable witness and that he would have proceeded to trial
rather than pleading guilty had counsel done so. Fugate argued that this
witness would have provided specific evidence showing that parts of the
victims allegations were false. The district court concluded that NRS
34.810(1)(a) barred this claim as well. But, NRS 34.810(1)(a) permits claims
alleging that a guilty plea was not entered with the effective assistance of
counsel. The district court therefore erred in denying this claim as
procedurally barred and should reach the merits of this claim as well. See
Kirksey v. State, 112 Nev. 980, 987-88, 923 P.2d 1102, 1107 (1996) (stating
standards for claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel arising out of
guilty pleas).
In his second claim, Fugate argued that the district court
abused its discretion by continuing the sentencing hearing without
appointing new counsel after trial counsel allegedly became Fugate's
adversary rather than his advocate. This claim falls outside the scope of
claims permitted by NRS 34.810(1)(a) because it does not challenge the
effective assistance of counsel or validity of the guilty plea, and the claim is
waived because it could have been raised on direct appeal. See Gonzales,
492 P.3d at 560; Franklin v. State, 110 Nev. 750, 752, 877 P.2d 1058, 1059
(1994), overruled on other grounds by Thomas v. State, 115 Nev. 148, 979
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
01 1947A 441110D
•
P.2d 222 (1999). The district court therefore reached the correct outcome in
denying this claim.
Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED IN
PART AND REVERSED IN PART AND REMAND this matter to the
district court for proceedings consistent with this order.
4:24tt"
Parraguirre
AA-7LN , J.
Hardesty
cc: Chief Judge, Second Judicial District Court
Department 10, Second Judicial District Court
David Kalo Niedert
Attorney General/Carson City
Washoe County District Attorney
Washoe District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
OM 1947A cliqtA.