From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bell v. State

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Apr 9, 2013
No. 61397 (Nev. Apr. 9, 2013)

Opinion

No. 61397

04-09-2013

EDDIE BELL A/K/A EDDIE EARVIN BELL, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.


An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority. SCR 123.

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

This is a proper person appeal from an order denying a motion to withdraw a guilty plea. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; David B. Barker, Judge.

This appeal has been submitted for decision without oral argument, NRAP 34(f)(3), and we conclude that the record is sufficient for our review and briefing is unwarranted. See Luckett v. Warden, 91 Nev. 681, 682, 541 P.2d 910, 911 (1975).

In his motion filed on June 15, 2012, appellant claimed that the State breached the plea negotiations offered in the justice court. We conclude that the equitable doctrine of laches precluded consideration of the motion because there was more than an eight-year delay from entry of the judgment of conviction, there was inexcusable delay in seeking relief, an implied waiver exists from appellant's knowing acquiescence in existing conditions, appellant previously litigated two habeas corpus petitions and one motion to correct an illegal sentence, and the State may suffer prejudice from the delay. Hart v. State, 116 Nev. 558, 563-64, 1 P.3d 969, 972 (2000). Therefore, the district court did not err in denying appellant's motion. Accordingly, we

Bell v. State, Docket No. 46241 (Order of Affirmance, March 22, 2006); Bell v. State, Docket No. 49362 (Order of Affirmance, December 10, 2007); Bell v. State, Docket No. 59158 (Order of Affirmance, March 7, 2012).

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion for the appointment of counsel.

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in proper person to the clerk of this court in this matter, and we conclude that no relief based upon those submissions is warranted. To the extent that appellant has attempted to present claims or facts in those submissions which were not previously presented in the proceedings below, we have declined to consider them in the first instance.
--------

________________________, J.

Hardesty

________________________, J.

Parraguirre

________________________, J.

Cherry
cc: Hon. David B. Barker, District Judge

Eddie Bell

Attorney General/Carson City

Clark County District Attorney

Eighth District Court Clerk


Summaries of

Bell v. State

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Apr 9, 2013
No. 61397 (Nev. Apr. 9, 2013)
Case details for

Bell v. State

Case Details

Full title:EDDIE BELL A/K/A EDDIE EARVIN BELL, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA…

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

Date published: Apr 9, 2013

Citations

No. 61397 (Nev. Apr. 9, 2013)