Mitchell v. State, 22262

Decision Date18 March 1993
Docket NumberNo. 22262,22262
Citation109 Nev. 137,848 P.2d 1060
PartiesPaula Mae MITCHELL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent.
CourtNevada Supreme Court
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

On April 27, 1990, appellant Paula Mae Mitchell was arrested at an apartment complex by an officer of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. In his arrest report, the officer stated:

Upon arrival I found a female subject, who verbally identified herself as Paula M. Mitchell.... The residents, Brandon Page and Kathryn Lovejoy were detaining Mitchell. Page said that he and Lovejoy were asleep and woke up when they heard some coins jingling on the counter. They found Mitchell in the apartment and detained her until I arrived.

Mitchell then stated that she was the maid for the apartment complex. She said that she was sorry for entering the apartment and that she shouldn't have done it. She said that she had been walking past the apartment window and saw some change and a pack of cigarettes laying on the counter. She then entered the apartment with her maids [sic] master key and was caught when the resident woke up.

The state charged appellant in a criminal complaint with one count of burglary. At the preliminary hearing, the deputy public defender representing appellant informed the justice of the peace that the case had been negotiated, and that appellant had agreed to plead guilty to one count of attempted burglary. On August 7, 1990, the state filed an amended information charging appellant with one count of attempted burglary. At appellant's arraignment on August 7, 1990, the district court questioned appellant extensively about her understanding of the charge and the voluntariness with which she entered her plea. At the end of the arraignment, the district court accepted appellant's plea of guilty.

Prior to sentencing, on November 20, 1990, appellant filed a motion through counsel to withdraw her guilty plea. Attached to the motion was an affidavit of defense counsel in which counsel stated that immediately after appellant entered her plea, she notified counsel that she had misunderstood the negotiations and did not understand that she would be giving up her right to trial. Counsel further stated that appellant so notified counsel long before appellant had been interviewed by the Department of Probation and Parole, and before any recommendation had been made by the department to the district court. Also attached to the motion was a letter written by appellant explaining in broken English that she was a maid at the apartment complex and had a master key to every room. The buildings of the complex were designated A, B, C, etc., and the rooms within each building were numbered identically. On the day in question, appellant was given a list of rooms to clean. Appellant accidentally went to an apartment which corresponded to a number on her list, but was in the wrong building. When she entered the apartment, it appeared to be vacant. Tenants sometimes leave loose change in the apartments when they vacate them, and when appellant saw some loose change, she assumed that it had been left by the tenants. After she had been in the apartment just a few minutes and had touched nothing but the loose change, she realized that the apartment was still occupied. Appellant realized that she had mistakenly entered the wrong apartment, but no one would allow her to explain. One occupant of the apartment held her at gun point until the police arrived. Appellant stated that she never had an opportunity to speak with her public defender about what really happened because he never had time. Appellant emphasized that she had simply entered the apartment by mistake and had not entered with the intention to commit a crime.

The state opposed appellant's motion to withdraw her guilty plea. After a hearing, the district court denied appellant's motion.

On April 24, 1991, the district court entered a judgment of conviction of one count of attempted burglary and sentenced appellant to serve a term of one year in the Nevada State Prison. The district court suspended the sentence and placed appellant on probation for a period not to exceed one year. This appeal followed.

Appellant contends that the district court abused its discretion in denying her motion to withdraw her guilty plea. Specifically, appellant argues that the district court failed to review the entire record in deciding whether to allow appellant to withdraw her plea, and that in doing so, the district court failed to perform its duty as set forth by this court in Bryant...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Rubio v. State, 48459.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nevada
    • October 30, 2008
    ...440, 442, 991 P.2d 474, 475 (1999) (citing Bryant v. State, 102 Nev. 268, 272, 721 P.2d 364, 368 (1986)). 24. Mitchell v. State, 109 Nev. 137, 140-41, 848 P.2d 1060, 1061-62 (1993). 25. 115 Nev. at 442, 991 P.2d at 475. 26. Id. at 442, 991 P.2d at 476. See Nollette v. State, 118 Nev. 341, 3......
  • Hall v. Director, Case No. 2:08-cv-01825-GMN-GWF
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Nevada
    • January 8, 2019
    ...(1969); see also, NRS 176.165. 2See Crawford v. State, 117 Nev. 718, 721-22, 30 P.3d 1123, 1125-26 (2001). 3Mitchell v. State, 109 Nev. 137, 141, 848 P.2d 1060, 1062 (1993). 4See Hubbard v. State, 109 Nev. 110 Nev. 671 675-76, 877 P.2d 519, 521 (1994). 5See Molina v. State, 120 Nev. 185, 87......
  • Velasco v. Filson, Case No. 3:13-cv-00431-MMD-VPC
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Nevada
    • September 12, 2017
    ...85 Nev. 381, 385, 455 P.2d 923, 926 (1969)); see also NRS 176.165.3Crawford v. State, 117 Nev. 718, 721-22, 30 P.3d 1123, 1125-26 (2001).4Mitchell v. State, 109 Nev. 137, 147, 848 P.2d 1060, 1062 (1993).5Bryant v. State, 102 Nev.268, 721 P.2d 364 (1986).6Id.7Molina v.State, 120 Nev. 185, 19......
  • Stevenson v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nevada
    • August 13, 2015
    ...reason the granting of the privilege seems fair and just.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Mitchell v. State, 109 Nev. 137, 141, 848 P.2d 1060, 1062 (1993) (holding that the appellant presented a fair and just reason to withdraw her plea where she had a credible claim of innoc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT