Rouse v. State, 7829
| Decision Date | 24 October 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 7829,7829 |
| Parties | Michael Allen ROUSE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
On April 11, 1974, Michael Allen Rouse pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance, marijuana. He was sentenced to a 4-year term in the Nevada State Prison. The execution of his sentence was suspended, and Rouse was place on probation for 2 years. 1 After sentencing, Rouse moved to withdraw his plea under the provisions of NRS 176.165, claiming that his plea was involuntary in that it was entered on the advice of his attorney that he would probably be given probation without jail time and a deferred sentence, as provided in NRS 453.336, subsection 6. 2 Rouse's attorney frankly admits that he did so advise Rouse. After a hearing on the motion, the court below denied it; hence, this appeal.
In Warden v. Craven, 91 Nev. ---, 537 P.2d 1198 (1975), this court affirmed a decision of a lower court permitting the respondents to withdraw their pleas of guilty to multiple felony offenses. In that case, the district judge had predicated his findings that the defendants' pleas were involuntary on the grounds that they were induced by an inference of probation supplied by their attorney. We felt constrained to affirm that ruling because we could not say that it amounted to an abuse of judicial discretion. In so holding, however, we admonished that we did not intend to suggest that a guilty plea would be rendered involuntary per se because of an alleged subjective reliance on counsel's innuendo regarding a possible sentence. Rouse's argument on this appeal falls directly within the ambit of that caveat.
In the instant case, Rouse's guilty plea was entered as a result of plea negotiations between the parties, wherein Rouse agreed to plead guilty on the promise that the prosecution would make no suggestion or recommendation to the court regarding sentencing. The record shows that the agreement was fully disclosed to the trial judge in open court and that the parties specifically stated that no other promise or consideration had been offered or accepted in connection with Rouse's plea. Rouse himself corroborated this testimony by acknowledging that he understood the bargain as described to incorporate the full extent of the agreement between the parties and that no other promise or threat had been made as an inducement to his plea of guilty.
Rouse, however, has attempted to explain the contradiction between this testimony and his present position by characterizing the taking of his plea as merely a pro forma routine colloquy entered into the record solely for the sake of legal technicality, but without any real substance in fact. We reject such an argument as entirely meritless. In Bryan v. United States, 492 F.2d 775 (5d Cir. 1974), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals observed that nullification of a plea on grounds similar to the one advanced in the instant case would reduce solemn legal proceeding to a charade, which would go far to undermine decisional finality, which is necessary to the effective administration of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sturrock v. State
...that he felt he could prevail at trial. United States v. Bettelyoun, 503 F.2d 1333, 1336 (8th Cir. 1974); Cf. Rouse v. State, 91 Nev. 677, 679, 541 P.2d 643, 644 (1975) (where state fulfills its obligations under plea bargain, defendant's subjective expectation of leniency is insufficient t......
-
Sullivan v. Nevins
...expectation of leniency, not caused by the prosecutor or the court, is not grounds to invalidate a guilty plea. Rouse v. State, 91 Nev. 677, 541 P.2d 643 (1975). Thus, even if Sullivan's testimony were true, the court would not set aside the judgment of conviction.Findings of Fact, Conclusi......
-
State v. Second Judicial Dist. Court of Nev.
...on anything the State or the district court said or did to contradict the acknowledgment Kephart signed. Compare Rouse v. State, 91 Nev. 677, 679, 541 P.2d 643, 644 (1975) ("mere subjective belief of a defendant as to potential sentence, or hope of leniency, unsupported by any promise from ......
-
Scott v. State
...subjective belief as to a potential sentence is insufficient to invalidate his guilty plea as involuntary and unknowing. Rouse v. State, 91 Nev. 677, 541 P.2d 643 (1975). Further, as noted above, appellant received a substantial benefit by entry of his guilty plea. Thus, because the claim l......