Waldron (Reese) v. State ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                  Clark County and Nye County amounts to double jeopardy, and incorrect
    information was included in the presentence investigation report. These
    claims fell outside the scope of claims permissible in a post-conviction
    petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging a judgment of conviction
    based upon a guilty plea. NRS 34.810(1)(a),
    Next, appellant claimed that his counsel was ineffective
    regarding a lack of communication on direct appeal. This claim failed
    under NRS 34.810(1)(a) because it did not challenge counsel's effectiveness
    in relation to entry of the guilty plea.
    Next, appellant claimed that trial counsel was ineffective for
    promising him that he would receive a sentence of 12 to 32 months to run
    concurrently with his sentence in another case. We conclude that
    appellant failed to demonstrate that his counsel was ineffective in this
    regard as the record indicates that this was not a term of the stated plea
    negotiations and during the plea canvass appellant acknowledged that no
    promises had been made to induce his guilty plea.      See Hill v. Lockhart,
    
    474 U.S. 52
    , 58-59 (1985); Kirksey v. State, 
    112 Nev. 980
    , 988, 
    923 P.2d 1102
    , 1107 (1996).
    Next, appellant claimed that trial counsel was ineffective for
    failing to argue for 281 days of presentence credits. Appellant failed to
    demonstrate that his trial counsel's performance was deficient or that he
    was prejudiced because he did not demonstrate that his confinement in
    California was solely pursuant to the charges in this case.    See 
    Hill, 474 U.S. at 58-59
    ; 
    Kirksey, 112 Nev. at 988
    , 923 P.2d at 1107; see also NRS
    176.055(1); Nieto v. State, 
    119 Nev. 229
    , 231, 
    70 P.3d 747
    , 748 (2003).
    Next, appellant claimed that trial counsel was ineffective for
    failing to file a motion to dismiss based upon a violation of the Interstate
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    2
    (0) 1907A    e
    Agreement on Detainers. Appellant failed to allege that any alleged
    deficiencies in counsel's performance would have had a reasonable
    probability of altering his decision to enter a guilty plea, and thus he failed
    to demonstrate that his counsel was ineffective.     See 
    Hill, 474 U.S. at 58
    -
    59; 
    Kirksey, 112 Nev. at 988
    , 923 P.2d at 1107. Further, appellant failed
    to demonstrate that a motion to dismiss would have been meritorious as
    he did not demonstrate that the "proof' of his demand for his speedy trial
    rights complied with NRS 178.620 (Article III), that the demand for trial
    was actually delivered to the State of Nevada, see Fex v. Michigan, 
    507 U.S. 43
    , 52 (1993); McNelton v. State, 
    115 Nev. 396
    , 414, 
    990 P.2d 1263
    ,
    1275 (1999), or that he was even qualified to submit a demand because he
    appears to have been incarcerated in jail as a condition of supervised
    release when he submitted his demand, see State v. Wade, 
    105 Nev. 206
    ,
    208-10, 
    772 P.2d 1291
    , 1293-94 (1989). Therefore, we affirm the order of
    the district court denying the petition. 3
    Docket No. 66997
    In his motion to amend the judgment of conviction, appellant
    claimed that he should have received an additional 251 days of credit for
    time served in California. Preliminarily, we note that appellant sought
    presentence credit in the wrong vehicle as a post-conviction petition for a
    writ of habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for a claim for additional
    presentence credit. See Griffin v. State, 
    122 Nev. 737
    , 744, 
    137 P.3d 1165
    ,
    3 To the extent that the district court determined that all of the
    claims were outside the scope of claims permissible, see NRS 34.810(1)(a),
    we conclude that this was error. We nevertheless affirm the order of the
    district court because the correct result was reached. See Wyatt v. State,
    
    86 Nev. 294
    , 298, 
    468 P.2d 338
    , 341 (1970).
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    3
    (0) 1947A
    1169 (2006). Even assuming that appellant's use of the wrong vehicle
    could be overlooked, appellant's claim for additional presentence credits
    lacked merit for the reason set forth above. Therefore, we
    ORDER the judgments of the district court AFFIRMED.
    Oa_                             J.
    ,   J.
    60e0A tur
    Pickering
    J.
    J
    cc: Hon. Robert W. Lane, District Judge
    Reese Robert Waldron
    Attorney General/Carson City
    Nye County District Attorney
    Nye County Clerk
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    4
    (0) 1.947A