Castro (Ezequiel) v. State

 assuming that laches does not preclude consideration of appellant's motion
on the merits, see Hart v. State, 116 Nev. 558, 563-65, 1 P.3d 969, 972
(2000) ("[C]onsideration of the equitable doctrine of laches is necessary in
determining whether a defendant has shown 'manifest injustice' that
would permit withdrawal of a plea after sentencing."), we conclude that he
is not entitled to relief because his conviction became final prior to Padilla
and he cannot benefit from its holding as Padilla does not apply
retroactively. Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. „ 133 S. Ct. 1103,
1113 (2013). Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not err by
denying appellant's motion, and we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
/ J.
Parrag-uirre
(VtA
Cherry
cc: Chief Judge, The Eighth Judicial District C -Ourt
Hon. J. Charles Thompson, Senior Judge
Don P. Chairez
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A