State v. Langarica, No. 21828
| Docket Nº | No. 21828 |
| Citation | 822 P.2d 1110, 107 Nev. 932 |
| Case Date | December 20, 1991 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Nevada |
Page 1110
v.
Hermelio Garcia LANGARICA, Respondent.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 11, 1992.
Page 1111
Frankie Sue Del Papa, Atty. Gen., Carson City, Dorothy Nash Holmes, Dist. Atty., and Scott W. Edwards, Deputy Dist. Atty., Washoe County, for appellant.
Plater & Picker, Reno, for respondent.
[107 Nev. 933] OPINION
YOUNG, Justice:
On August 25, 1989, Hermelio Garcia Langarica (Langarica) pled guilty to a reduced charge of trafficking in 200, but less than 400, grams of a schedule II substance (cocaine). On November 8, 1989, Judge Breen sentenced Langarica to six years imprisonment and imposed the minimum mandatory fine of $100,000. Upon a petition for post-conviction relief, based on ineffective assistance of counsel, Judge Breen set aside Langarica's conviction and guilty plea and reinstated the charges. The State appeals.
To state a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel sufficient to invalidate a judgment of conviction based on a guilty plea, a defendant must demonstrate a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, he would not have pled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. Hill v. Lockhard, 474 U.S. 52, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985); Warden v. Lyons, 100 Nev. 430, 683 P.2d 504 (1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1004, 105 S.Ct. 1865, 85 L.Ed.2d 159 (1985).
In his petition, Langarica asserted that he thought he would be sentenced to probation or time served, and that his counsel told him that he would argue for probation at sentencing. The sentencing range for Langarica was five to twenty years. When Langarica entered his plea of guilty, the court specifically asked him what the punishment for the crime could be, and Langarica answered through an interpreter, "Five to 20 years." The court twice told Langarica that he would take his chances on the maximum punishment and asked if Langarica was willing to take such a chance. Langarica answered "Yes" both times. The court informed Langarica that he would serve five years in prison as a minimum, unless Langarica provided substantial assistance. Upon asking Langarica if he understood, Langarica answered, "Yes, I understand." The court asked Langarica if he was involved in the drug deal and if he was guilty of the offense. Langarica answered "Yes" to both questions.
At the post-conviction relief evidentiary hearing, defense counsel testified that Langarica repeatedly asked him if he could be [107 Nev. 934] sentenced to probation. Defense counsel informed Langarica that he could not get probation, but that he would argue for it at sentencing. Defense counsel felt that, even though there was a minimum sentence of five years, the court had the inherent power to impose any sentence the court saw fit.
In granting the petition for post-conviction relief, the district court stated that the canvas at the guilty plea hearing was proper,
Page 1112
but that the court was "troubled" about defense counsel's position concerning the minimum sentence and the availability of probation, given defense counsel's mistaken beliefs...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kirksey v. State, No. 25540
...to trial. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59, 106 S.Ct. 366, 370, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985) (emphasis added); see also State v. Langarica, 107 Nev. 932, 933, 822 P.2d 1110, 1111 (1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 924, 113 S.Ct. 346, 121 L.Ed.2d 261 (1992). "A reasonable probability is a probability ......
-
Carmona v. NDOC Dir., Case No. 3:11-cv-00070-MMD-WGC
...counsel may have made, he would not have pleaded guilty but would have insisted on going to trial. See generally State v. Langarica, 107 Nev. 932, 822 P.2d 1110 (1991). We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in denying this claim.(Exhibit 54, at pp. 2-3). The Nevada Supre......
-
State v. Gomes, No. 27163
...probability that, but for counsel's errors, he would not have pled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial." State v. Langarica, 107 Nev. 932, 933, 822 P.2d 1110, 1111 (1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 924, 113 S.Ct. 346, 121 L.Ed.2d 261 (1992). It is clear that Gomes' decision not to......
-
Carmona v. State, Nos. 56463
...counsel may have made, he would not have pleaded guilty but would have insisted on going to trial. See generally State v. Langarica, 107 Nev. 932, 822 P.2d 1110 (1991). We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in denying this claim.Second, appellant claimed that counsel was......
-
Kirksey v. State, No. 25540
...to trial. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59, 106 S.Ct. 366, 370, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985) (emphasis added); see also State v. Langarica, 107 Nev. 932, 933, 822 P.2d 1110, 1111 (1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 924, 113 S.Ct. 346, 121 L.Ed.2d 261 (1992). "A reasonable probability is a probability ......
-
Carmona v. NDOC Dir., Case No. 3:11-cv-00070-MMD-WGC
...counsel may have made, he would not have pleaded guilty but would have insisted on going to trial. See generally State v. Langarica, 107 Nev. 932, 822 P.2d 1110 (1991). We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in denying this claim.(Exhibit 54, at pp. 2-3). The Nevada Supre......
-
State v. Gomes, No. 27163
...probability that, but for counsel's errors, he would not have pled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial." State v. Langarica, 107 Nev. 932, 933, 822 P.2d 1110, 1111 (1991), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 924, 113 S.Ct. 346, 121 L.Ed.2d 261 (1992). It is clear that Gomes' decision not to......
-
Carmona v. State, Nos. 56463
...counsel may have made, he would not have pleaded guilty but would have insisted on going to trial. See generally State v. Langarica, 107 Nev. 932, 822 P.2d 1110 (1991). We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in denying this claim.Second, appellant claimed that counsel was......