-
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. 133S. 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Precedential Status: Non-Precedential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