From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Manukyan v. State

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
May 15, 2013
No. 60049 (Nev. May. 15, 2013)

Opinion

No. 60049

05-15-2013

SARKIS MANUKYAN, 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An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority.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 an appeal from a district court order denying appellant's post-conviction motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; James M. Bixler, Judge.

Appellant argues that the district court erred by concluding that Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010), does not apply retroactively and by denying his post-conviction motion to withdraw his guilty plea. His motion contends that counsel was ineffective for not advising him of any immigration consequences stemming from his guilty plea pursuant to Padilla. The State argues that the district court should have declined to consider the motion on its merits as the equitable doctrine of laches precluded consideration.

A court may, after sentencing, set aside a judgment of conviction and permit the defendant to withdraw his plea to "correct manifest injustice." NRS 176.165; see also Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59-60 (1985); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); Rubio v. State, 124 Nev. 1032, 1039-40, 194 P.3d 1224, 1228-29 (2008). Even assuming that laches does not preclude consideration of appellant's motion on the merits, see Hart v. State, 116 Nev. 558, 563-65, 1 P.3d 969, 972-73 (2000) ("[C]onsideration of the equitable doctrine of laches is necessary in determining whether a defendant has shown 'manifest injustice' that would permit withdrawal of a plea after sentencing."), we conclude that he is not entitled to relief because "Padilla does not have retroactive effect." Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. ___, __, 133 S. Ct. 1103, 1105 (2013). Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not err by denying appellant's motion, and we

We are not convinced by appellant's argument that we should, despite the holding of Chaidez, apply Padilla retroactively to correct any alleged manifest injustice.

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

_____________, J.

Gibbons

_____________, J.

Douglas

_____________, J.

Saitta
cc: Hon. James M. Bixler, District Judge

Chesnoff & Schonfeld

Attorney General/Carson City

Clark County District Attorney

Eighth District Court Clerk


Summaries of

Manukyan v. State

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
May 15, 2013
No. 60049 (Nev. May. 15, 2013)
Case details for

Manukyan v. State

Case Details

Full title:SARKIS MANUKYAN, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

Date published: May 15, 2013

Citations

No. 60049 (Nev. May. 15, 2013)