Desantiago (Edgar) v. State ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                 Appellant claims that it was not until his wife consulted with an attorney
    in 2012 that he learned that, based on Padilla v. Kentucky, 
    559 U.S. 356
    (2010), counsel was supposed to inform him of the immigration
    consequences of his plea.
    Appellant fails to demonstrate that there was excusable delay.
    He waited nearly three years after Padilla was decided to file this motion.
    Appellant's failure to seek counsel earlier does not excuse his delay.
    Further, despite appellant's arguments to the contrary, Padilla is not
    retroactive, see Chaidez v. United States, 
    568 U.S. 133
     S. Ct. 1103,
    1105 (2013), and therefore, would not help him overcome the equitable
    doctrine of laches.
    Further, we reject appellant's assertion that his case is not
    final because the instant motion is tantamount to a direct appeal.       See
    Colwell v. State,     
    118 Nev. 807
    , 816-17, 
    59 P.3d 463
    , 469-70 (2002).
    Moreover, we reject appellant's argument that the State would not suffer
    prejudice from the delay. Accordingly, the district court did not err in
    denying appellant's motion, and we
    ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.'
    Poeutlip         J.
    Pickering
    Parraguirre
    'We note that appellant failed to make any argument in support of a
    motion to modify sentence.
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    2
    (0) 1947A
    cc: Hon. Jerome T. Tao, District Judge
    Xavier Gonzales
    Attorney General/Carson City
    Clark County District Attorney
    Eighth District Court Clerk
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    3
    (D) I947A
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 63673

Filed Date: 6/12/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014