Boney (William) v. Warden C/W 65537 ( 2014 )

 Lader v. Warden, 121 Nev. 682, 686, 120 P.3d 1164, 1166 (2005). Here,
the district court conducted an evidentiary hearing and heard testimony
from Boney and his former counsel. The district court determined that
although counsel misinformed Boney about his potential sentence, he
failed to demonstrate prejudice because, "in essence, petitioner conceded
he still would have pleaded guilty had [counsel] correctly explained the
possible sentences he faced." The district court stated that it was "not
persuaded" that Boney "would not have pleaded guilty and would have
insisted on proceeding to trial absent the misinformation." See Hill v.
Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58-59 (1985); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.
668, 687-88, 694 (1984); Kirksey v. State, 112 Nev. 980, 987, 923 P.2d
1102, 1107 (1996); see also Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. „ 131 S.
Ct. 1388, 1408 (2011) ("Surmounting Strickland's high bar is never an
easy task." (quotation marks omitted) (alteration omitted)). The district
court also found that Boney entered his guilty pleas knowingly and
intelligently, see Bryant v. State, 102 Nev. 268, 272, 721 P.2d 364, 368
(1986), and that his pleas were not rendered invalid by counsel's failure to
execute certificates of counsel, see Sparks v. State, 121 Nev. 107, 112, 110
P.3d 486, 489 (2005) (failure to substantially comply with NRS 174.063
will not invalidate a guilty plea "provided that the totality of the
circumstances indicates that the guilty plea was knowing, voluntary and
intelligent"). We conclude that the district court did not err by rejecting
Boney's ineffective-assistance claims.
Second, Boney contends that the district court erred by
improperly analyzing his ineffective-assistance-of-appellate-counsel claims
as challenges to the validity of his guilty pleas. In support of his claim,
Boney refers to statements made by the district court at his evidentiary
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
kUgUr`
hearing. Boney, however, does not address the district court's order
denying his claims. We have held that only a final judgment, signed by
the judge and entered by the clerk, is effective and appealable. See Rust v.
Clark Cty. School District, 103 Nev. 686, 689, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987)
(explaining that oral pronouncements from the bench are ineffective for
any purpose). The district court's written order properly analyzes Boney's
claims pursuant to the standard announced in Strickland and as noted in
Kirksey, 112 Nev. at 998, 923 P.2d at 1113-14. Therefore, we conclude
that Boney's contention is without merit. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgments of the district court AFFIRMED.
Hardesty
Sth , J.
Douglas
. D#074 , j.
akar
Cherry
cc: Hon. Janet J. Berry, District Judge
Janet S. Bessemer
Attorney General/Carson City
Washoe County District Attorney
Washoe District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A e