Kozlowski (Steven) v. State ( 2014 )

 court's actions pursuant to its inherent authority are reviewed for abuse of
discretion).
Second, Kozlowski argues that his• guilty plea was not
knowing or voluntary. He asserts that he could not comprehend the
proceedings because of the lack of a note-taker, the court failed to canvas
him regarding his veteran status, and he was medicated at the time of his
plea. Generally, challenges to the validity of a guilty plea must be raised
in the district court in the first instance by either filing a motion to
withdraw the guilty plea or commencing a timely post-conviction
proceeding pursuant to NRS chapter 34. Bryant v. State, 102 Nev. 268,
272, 721 P.2d 364, 367-68 (1986), limited by Smith v. State, 110 Nev. 1009,
1010 n.1, 879 P.2d 60, 61 n.1 (1994), see also O'Guinn v. State, 118 Nev.
849, 851-52, 59 P.3d 488, 489-90 (2002). Because the record does not
indicate that Kozlowski challenged the validity of his guilty plea on this
basis in the district court, his claim is not appropriate for review on direct
appeal from the judgment of conviction, and, therefore, we need not
address it. Bryant, 102 Nev. at 272, 721 P.2d at 368.
Third, Kozlowski contends that the district court erred in
denying his motion to suppress his blood sample and motion to produce his
blood sample, or in the alternative, dismiss based on the destruction of the
sample. We decline to consider the merits of Kozlowski's contention
because he waived his claim when he entered the guilty plea. Generally,
the entry of a guilty plea waives any right to appeal from events occurring
prior to the entry of the plea. See Webb v. State, 91 Nev. 469, 538 P.2d 164
(1975) ("`[A] guilty plea represents a break in the chain of events which
has preceded it in the criminal process. . . . [A defendant] may not
thereafter raise independent claims relating to the deprivation of
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 19474 ea
constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea."
(first alteration in original) (quoting Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258,
267 (1973))). NRS 174.035(3) permits, with the consent of the district
court and the district attorney, a defendant pleading guilty to reserve in
writing the right to appeal an adverse determination on a specified
pretrial motion. However, Kozlowski does not assert, and the record does
not indicate, that he preserved the right to appeal these issues prior to
pleading guilty.
Having considered Kozlowski's contentions and concluded that
they lack merit, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
Piaeu
Pickering
J.
.C241)I
n....nna,2411Strialmr
ParraguiTTe
'}A
.
At+ J.
Saitta
cc: Hon. Michael P. Gibbons, District Judge
Jamie C. Henry
Attorney General/Carson City
Douglas County District Attorney/Minden
Douglas County Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A