Summary
The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Edward Molina’s presentence motion to withdraw guilty pleas to sexual assault and lewdness with a child. The court held that Molina failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel or that his pleas were not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. It also held that Molina’s ineffective-assistance claim waived the attorney-client privilege as to communications relevant to the plea-withdrawal proceeding.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Molina's presentence motion to withdraw his guilty pleas based on alleged ineffective assistance of counsel and an allegedly unknowing, involuntary, or unintelligent plea.
- Whether Molina's claim that counsel provided ineffective assistance waived the attorney-client privilege as to communications relevant to the plea-withdrawal proceeding.
Holdings
- Molina failed to establish deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland and failed to show that his pleas were not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying the presentence motion to withdraw the pleas.
- A defendant who moves to withdraw a guilty plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel places the scope and content of attorney-client communications directly at issue and thereby waives the privilege for that proceeding to the extent counsel must respond to the allegations.
Key quotations
“To establish prejudice in the context of a challenge to a guilty plea based upon an assertion of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must “ ‘demonstrate a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.’ ”” (120 Nev. 190)
“We will not permit a defendant to use insufficient communication with his attorney as a sword to assert a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, but then use a claim of attorney-client privilege as a shield to protect the content of his conversations with his attorney.” (120 Nev. 194)
“We therefore hold that a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, based upon claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, directly places in issue the scope and content of communications between the attorney and the client.” (120 Nev. 194)
Factual background
Molina was charged with multiple sexual offenses involving a child under fourteen. He replaced appointed counsel with private counsel, entered guilty pleas under a negotiated agreement, and affirmed during a detailed plea canvass that he understood the agreement, the charges, and the possible penalties. Before sentencing, he sought to withdraw the pleas, asserting that counsel had inadequately investigated and advised him. At the evidentiary hearing, counsel testified that he reviewed the evidence and plea agreement with Molina, discussed trial options, and learned that Molina had admitted the abuse allegations.
Procedural history
After proceedings in justice court, the State filed a criminal information in district court. Molina initially pleaded not guilty, then retained private counsel and pleaded guilty pursuant to a negotiated agreement. Before sentencing, he moved to withdraw the pleas based on ineffective assistance of counsel and lack of a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of trial rights. The district court held an evidentiary hearing, denied the motion, imposed concurrent life sentences with parole eligibility after 120 months and lifetime supervision upon release, and ordered other monetary and testing-related assessments. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed.