Stowers (Monique) v. State

 147 P.3d 233, 238 (2006) (this court will not disturb a district court's
credibility determination unless it "is left with the definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been committed" (internal quotation marks
omitted)). In addition, Stowers admitted in her guilty plea agreement and
during her canvass that she had discussed the case with counsel,
understood the rights she was giving up, and believed pleading guilty was
in her best interest. See Crawford v. State, 117 Nev. 718, 722, 30 P.3d
1123, 1126 (2001) ("A thorough plea canvass coupled with a detailed,
consistent, written plea agreement supports a finding that the defendant
entered the plea voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently."). Stowers fails
to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion by denying her
motion and by doing so without conducting an evidentiary hearing or
appointing independent counsel.
Second, Stowers contends that the district court abused its
discretion by denying her motion to withdraw her guilty plea on the
ground that it was induced by fear of her codefendants. Stowers also
asserts that the district court failed to consider all relevant factors before
denying her motion. After the district court denied Stowers' motion to
withdraw her guilty plea on the ground that it was entered while going
through detoxification, Stowers filed a motion to dismiss counsel, wherein
she mentioned that she had been attacked by a representative of her
codefendants and was afraid of them. During argument on her motion,
Stowers referenced the incident again and stated that she was forced into
the plea. However, Stowers did not assert that withdrawal of the plea was
warranted because it was induced by fear of her codefendants; rather, she
repeatedly asserted that withdrawal of counsel was warranted because of
counsel's disrespectful attitude towards her. Because the claim regarding
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
her guilty plea was not raised or considered by the district court, we
decline to consider it on appeal. See Thomas v. State, 93 Nev. 565, 566,
571 P.2d 113, 114 (1977).
Third, Stowers contends that the district court abused its
discretion by denying her request for a continuance so she could retain
private counsel. We disagree. A defendant's right to retain counsel must
be balanced against the needs of fairness and demands of the court's
calendar. Patterson v. State, 129 Nev. „ 298 P.3d 433, 438 (2013),
cert. denied, U.S. , 134 S. Ct. 1280 (2014). Here, Stowers indicated
that she wished to retain private counsel on September 18, 2013, and the
district court told her to do so before sentencing on October 21, 2013. At
sentencing, Stowers explained that she had not retained counsel and
requested a different public defender. The proceeding was continued.
When the district court denied her request on October 28, 2013, Stowers
asked for an additional 90 days to retain private counsel. The district
court noted that Stowers had previously delayed the proceedings to retain
counsel yet did not do so and denied her request for a 90-day continuance.
Under these circumstances, we concludeS that the district court did not
abuse its discretion. Id.
Having considered Stowers' contentions and concluded that
they lack merit, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
Pickering
Ait a---C7CCJ.
Parraguirre Saitta
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
I947A
cc: Hon. Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, District Judge
Clark County Public Defender
Sandra L. Stewart
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) N47A