Limperis v. State, 111219 NVCA, 77585-COA

Docket Nº:77585-COA
Opinion Judge:Gibbons, C.J.
Party Name:JAMES LIMPERIS, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.
Judge Panel:Tao, Bulla, Judges. Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, District Judge.
Case Date:November 12, 2019
Court:Court of Appeals of Nevada




No. 77585-COA

Court of Appeals of Nevada

November 12, 2019



Gibbons, C.J.

James Limperis appeals from a judgment of conviction entered pursuant to a guilty plea of theft. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark I County; Kathleen E. Delaney, Judge.

Limperis claims the district court abused its discretion by denying his presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea. A defendant may move to withdraw a guilty plea before sentencing, NRS 176.165, and "a district court may grant a defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea before sentencing for any reason where permitting withdrawal would be fair and just," Stevenson v. State, 131 Nev. 598, 604, 354 P.3d 1277, 1281 (2015). The district court's ruling on a presentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea "is discretionary and will not be reversed unless there has been a clear abuse of that discretion." State v. Second Judicial Dist. Court (Bernardelli), 85 Nev. 381, 385, 455 P.2d 923, 926 (1969).

Limperis claimed he entered a guilty plea because "every attempt to retrieve information in all forms of missing information had been futile." Immediately after entering his guilty plea he learned that forensic capabilities exist to retrieve data from old computers and cell phones. Searches of these devices have been completed and although the searches did not retrieve all of the text messages, emails, photographs, and phone logs, Limperis asserted that the information they did recover proved that his accuser made false statements under oath to the grand jury and to the Attorney General Investigator. He also asserted the retrieved emails established the accuser "omitted work and the plan desired by the accuser underlying this businesses transaction." Additionally, he argued that he was not provided with a copy of the Attorney General's investigative report . and, had he been, he would have been able to prove the claims it contained were wrong.

The district court considered Limperis' motion to withdraw his guilty plea, the State's opposition to that motion, and the arguments of counsel and...

To continue reading