From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gomez v. State

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Jan 24, 2020
No. 77765-COA (Nev. App. Jan. 24, 2020)

Opinion

No. 77765-COA

01-24-2020

RAMON GOMEZ, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.


ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Ramon Gomez appeals from an order of the district court denying a petition for a writ of coram nobis filed on August 14, 2018. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Ronald J. Israel, Judge.

Gomez contends the district court erred by denying his petition on the ground that his claim was precluded by the decision in Trujillo v. State, 129 Nev. 706, 310 P.3d 594 (2013). We review the district court's decision for an abuse of discretion. Id. at 718, 310 P.3d at 602. "[T]he writ of coram nobis may be used to address errors of fact outside the record that affect the validity and regularity of the decision itself and would have precluded the judgment from being rendered." Id. at 717, 310 P.3d at 601. The writ is "limited to errors involving facts that were not known to the court, were not withheld by the defendant, and would have prevented entry of the judgment." Id. Finally, "[a] claim of ineffective assistance of counsel involves legal error," id. at 719, 310 P.3d at 602, and, therefore, falls outside the limited scope of a petition for a writ of coram nobis.

Gomez argued he was entitled to relief because he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Recognizing the limits of a writ of coram nobis, Gomez emphasized that counsel's factual misrepresentation led to counsel's ineffective assistance in advising Gomez to plead guilty. Alternatively, he asks this court to reconsider Trujillo. Gomez' attempt to focus on the factual component of his claim was of no avail. The court in Trujillo acknowledged that ineffective-assistance claims "undeniably" have "a factual underpinning," yet maintained that whether counsel was ineffective was a legal question and, thus, outside the scope of a petition for a writ of coram nobis. Id. at 719, 310 P.3d at 602. Further, this court cannot overrule Nevada Supreme Court precedent. Because Gomez' petition was based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we conclude the district court did not err by denying his petition on the ground that it was outside the scope of claims permitted in a petition for a writ of coram nobis. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

In light of our conclusion, Gomez' argument as to whether the district court erred by also barring Gomez' petition under the doctrine of laches is moot. --------

/s/_________, C.J.

Gibbons /s/_________, J.
Tao /s/_________, J.
Bulla cc: Hon. Ronald J. Israel, District Judge

Wooldridge Law

Attorney General/Carson City

Clark County District Attorney

Eighth District Court Clerk


Summaries of

Gomez v. State

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Jan 24, 2020
No. 77765-COA (Nev. App. Jan. 24, 2020)
Case details for

Gomez v. State

Case Details

Full title:RAMON GOMEZ, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

Court:COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

Date published: Jan 24, 2020

Citations

No. 77765-COA (Nev. App. Jan. 24, 2020)