Morente (Silvio) v. State

 1032, 1039, 194 P.3d 1224, 1228-29 (2008), and its determination whether
withdrawal was warranted for an abuse of discretion, Molina v. State, 120
Nev. 185, 191, 87 P.3d 533, 538 (2004).
Even assuming, without deciding, that the doctrine of laches
did not preclude consideration of Morente's motion, he is not entitled to
relief because "Padilla does not have retroactive effect." Chaidez v. United
States, 568 U.S. , 133 S. Ct. 1103, 1105 (2013). We reject
Morente's assertion that his case is not final because the instant motion is
tantamount to a direct appeal as well as his assertion that the
retroactivity analysis described in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989),
should not apply for the same reason. Moreover, the record does not
demonstrate that Morente was affirmatively misadvised of the
immigration consequences of pleading guilty. Accordingly, we conclude
the district court did not err by denying his motion, and we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
_etu
( ait J.
Pickering
ify
J.
Parragairre
,
iil+/L:
z"s J.
Saitta
cc: Hon. Douglas Smith, District Judge
Law Offices of Anthony D. Guenther, Esq.
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A