Opinion
No. 64781
07-22-2014
VICTOR FELIX DURAN-ROBLES, 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An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority.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 judgment of conviction, pursuant to a guilty plea, of ownership or possession of a firearm by a prohibited person. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Elliott A. Sattler, Judge.
Due to the discrepancy between the reservation in the guilty plea memorandum and what appellant Victor Felix Duran-Robles subsequently raised in the district court (and again on appeal), it appeared that his guilty plea might be invalid; therefore, on June 11, 2014, we ordered the State to show cause why Duran-Robles' conviction should not be reversed and his case remanded for the vacating of his guilty plea. After reviewing the State's response and Duran-Robles' reply, we are now prepared to resolve this appeal.
Pursuant to NRS 174.035(3), "a defendant may enter a conditional plea of guilty, . . . reserving in writing the right, on appeal from the judgment, to a review of the adverse determination of any specified pretrial motion." (Emphasis added.) At the time Duran-Robles entered his guilty plea, he had not yet filed the relevant pretrial motion—his motion to dismiss was filed after he entered his guilty plea. The reservation in the guilty plea memorandum, therefore, fails to comply with NRS 174.035(3) and was improper.
According to the guilty plea memorandum, Duran-Robles "reserve[d] the right to challenge the validity of the prior judgment of conviction which gives rise to this offense." On appeal, Duran-Robles contends that the district court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the criminal information. We disagree. The district court conducted a hearing and found that there was no evidence that Duran-Robles' prior conviction was constitutionally infirm; the documents submitted by the State, "taken as a whole, demonstrate that the [prior] conviction was a felony conviction;" and Duran-Robles "has not rebutted this presumption, nor has he met his burden of proving that his prior conviction was unconstitutional." See Dressier v. State, 107 Nev. 686, 697-98, 819 P.2d 1288, 1295-96 (1991); see also Davenport v. State, 112 Nev. 475, 477-78, 915 P.2d 878, 880 (1996). We also note that any challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence was waived by the entry of Duran-Robles' guilty plea. See Webb v. State, 91 Nev. 469, 470, 538 P.2d 164, 165 (1975). We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Duran-Robles' motion to dismiss. See Hill v. State, 124 Nev. 546, 550, 188 P.3d 51, 54 (2008) (we review a district court's denial of a motion to dismiss for an abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.
__________, J.
Pickering
__________, J.
Parraguirre
__________, J.
Saitta
cc: Hon. Elliott A. Sattler, District Judge
Washoe County Public Defender
Attorney General/Carson City
Washoe County District Attorney
Washoe District Court Clerk