Zamudio v. State, 111219 NVCA, 77455-COA
|Opinion Judge:||GIBBONS, C.J.|
|Party Name:||JOSEPH ANTHONY ZAMUDIO, A/K/A MARCOS A. ZAMUDIO, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.|
|Judge Panel:||Tao, Bulla, J.|
|Case Date:||November 12, 2019|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Nevada|
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
Joseph Anthony Zamudio appeals from a judgment of conviction entered pursuant to a guilty plea of exploitation of an older/vulnerable person. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Jennifer P. Togliatti, Judge.
Zamudio 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).
Zamudio claimed that his guilty plea was not freely, voluntarily, and knowingly entered because "he did not fully understand the terms of his plea agreement nor was he in the right state of mind when he entered his plea." He alleged that he did not understand the charge that he pleaded guilty to, the sentencing structure, or the fact that sentencing was up to the district court. He asserted that his methadone withdrawal and other medical issues prevented him from understanding the plea agreement. And he argued that he would not have accepted the plea agreement and would have insisted on going to trial if he had "been in a coherent state of mind."
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP