From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tapia-Vega v. State

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Apr 10, 2013
No. 61506 (Nev. Apr. 10, 2013)

Opinion

No. 61506

04-10-2013

REYNALDO TAPIA-VEGA, 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An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority.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 of the district court denying a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Stefany Miley, 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).

Appellant filed his petition on April 4, 2012, more than two years after entry of the judgment of conviction on February 22, 2010. Thus, appellant's petition was untimely filed. See NRS 34.726(1). Appellant's petition was procedurally barred absent a demonstration of good cause: cause for the delay and undue prejudice. See id.

Appellant claimed that he had cause for the delay because he did not learn, due to a language barrier, until October 2011 that the plea agreement had been breached. Specifically, appellant claimed that he had agreed to a maximum minimum sentence of 8 years and that this meant the sentences for the two counts would be terms of 8 to 20 years, to run concurrently with one another. Instead, the district court imposed two consecutive sentences of 4 to 20 years.

Based upon our review of the record on appeal, we conclude that the district court did not err in rejecting this good cause argument. The underlying factual basis of appellant's claim is incorrect as two consecutive terms of 4 to 20 years complied with the agreement that the maximum minimum sentence not exceed 8 years. The plea negotiations did not include a promise of concurrent sentences. The guilty plea agreement specifically informed appellant that the decision to impose consecutive sentences was within the discretion of the district court. Appellant's two consecutive minimum terms of 4 years complies with the plea agreement. Regardless of the alleged language barrier, the factual basis for the good cause argument lacked merit. Accordingly, we

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. _______________, J.
Parraguirre
_______________, J.
Cherry
cc: Hon. Stefany Miley, District Judge

Reynaldo Tapia-Vega

Attorney General/Carson City

Clark County District Attorney

Eighth District Court Clerk


Summaries of

Tapia-Vega v. State

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Apr 10, 2013
No. 61506 (Nev. Apr. 10, 2013)
Case details for

Tapia-Vega v. State

Case Details

Full title:REYNALDO TAPIA-VEGA, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

Date published: Apr 10, 2013

Citations

No. 61506 (Nev. Apr. 10, 2013)