Schmitt v. State, 031920 NVCA, 77686-COA
|Opinion Judge:||Gibbons C.J.|
|Party Name:||MARGARET GENEVIEVE SCHMITT, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.|
|Judge Panel:||Tao J., Bulla J. Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge|
|Case Date:||March 19, 2020|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Nevada|
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
Margaret Genevieve Schmitt appeals from a judgment of conviction entered pursuant to a no-contest plea to possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of sale. First Judicial District Court, Carson City James Todd Russell, Judge.
Schmitt first contends the district court erred by denying her I motion to withdraw her no-contest plea. A defendant may move to withdraw a plea before sentencing, NHS 176.165, and "a district court may i grant a defendant's motion to withdraw [her] 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). We give deference to the findings of the district court so long as they are supported by the record. Id.
In her motion, Schmitt claimed her plea should be withdrawn because counsel coerced her plea and she was factually innocent. The district court held an evidentiary hearing on Schmitt's motion to withdraw. The district court found, under the totality of the circumstances, there was no fair or just reason to allow Schmitt to withdraw her plea. The district court found no evidence of coercion. The district further found that Schmitt's claims of innocence were not credible. We conclude the district court's findings are supported by the record, the district court applied the correct standard when resolving the motion, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying this claim. See id. at 605, 354 P.3d at 1282 ("Permitting [the defendant] to withdraw [her] plea under the circumstances would allow the solemn entry of a guilty plea to become a mere gesture, a temporary and meaningless formality reversible at the defendant's whim." (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Schmitt next contends the district court "failed to protect [her] from counsel's conflict of interest."2 "[A] conflict exists when an attorney is placed in a situation conducive to divided loyalties." Clark v. State, 108...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP