Dieudonne (Abell) v. State ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                 application of the law to those facts de novo. Lader v. Warden, 
    121 Nev. 682
    , 686, 
    120 P.3d 1164
    , 1166 (2005). 1
    Dieudonne contended that his counsel rendered ineffective
    assistance by coercing him into accepting his plea agreement by "strongly
    pressuring" him into believing that his counts would run concurrently.
    The district court concluded that counsel did not pressure or coerce
    Dieudonne into accepting the plea and that he failed to establish
    deficiency or prejudice. Having reviewed the record, including counsel's
    testimony that he made no promises to Dieudonne that the counts would
    run concurrently, we conclude that counsel did not perform deficiently.
    Furthermore, Dieudonne did not testify during the evidentiary hearing or
    argue on appeal that, but for his belief that the counts would run
    concurrently, he would have insisted on going to trial and risked being
    convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without the
    possibility of parole. Accordingly, we conclude that counsel was not
    ineffective.
    Second, Dieudonne contends that the district court erred by
    concluding that his guilty plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and
    intelligently entered. "On appeal from the district court's determination,
    we will presume that the lower court correctly assessed the validity of the
    'We note that post-conviction counsel's opening brief is devoid of any
    reference to Nevada law, including the relevant standard of review for
    Dieudonne's claims of error. NRAP 28(a)(9) requires opening briefs to
    contain a concise statement of the applicable standard of review and
    citation to the relevant authorities upon which appellant relies. As
    counsel acknowledged in his attorney certification, failure to follow the
    requirements of the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure may result in
    sanctions. See NRAP 28.2(b).
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    2
    (0) 1947A
    INE5JESWAtiffill
    plea, and we will not reverse the lower court's determination absent a
    clear showing of an abuse of discretion." Bryant v. State, 
    102 Nev. 268
    ,
    272, 
    721 P.2d 364
    , 368 (1986), limited on other grounds by Smith v. State,
    
    110 Nev. 1009
    , 1010 n.1, 
    879 P.2d 60
    , 61 n.1 (1994); see also State v.
    Freese, 
    116 Nev. 1097
    , 1106, 
    13 P.3d 442
    , 448 (2000). Having reviewed
    the entire record and the totality of the facts and circumstances
    surrounding the plea, including the district court's thorough plea canvass
    and Dieudonne's testimony that he knew the judge had the discretion to
    sentence him to consecutive counts and life in prison, we conclude that the
    district court correctly assessed the validity of Dieudonne's plea and did
    not abuse its discretion.
    Having considered Dieudonne's contentions and concluded
    that the district court did not err by denying his post-conviction petition,
    we
    ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
    Hardesty
    cc: Hon. Doug Smith, District Judge
    Keith C. Brower
    Attorney General/Carson City
    Clark County District Attorney
    Eighth District Court Clerk
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    3
    (0) 1947A
    AARKKA I rAT    -             MS=
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 60507

Filed Date: 4/10/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014