Summary
The Nevada Supreme Court held that NRS 176.165 permits a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea before sentencing for any reason that makes withdrawal fair and just, rejecting Crawford v. State's exclusive focus on whether the plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered. Applying the totality-of-the-circumstances standard, the court concluded that Stevenson failed to establish a sufficient reason to withdraw his plea based on the alleged mishandling of surveillance video, coercion, or an impulsive decision. The court affirmed the judgment of conviction.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether NRS 176.165 permits withdrawal of a guilty plea before sentencing only when the plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered, or instead permits withdrawal for any substantial, fair, and just reason based on the totality of the circumstances.
- Whether Stevenson established a fair and just reason to withdraw his guilty plea based on alleged misinformation about the surveillance video, coercion, time pressures, or an impulsive decision.
- Whether the district court's factual findings concerning the alleged misinformation were supported by the record.
Holdings
- NRS 176.165 does not limit the fair-and-just inquiry to whether the guilty plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered. A district court must consider the totality of the circumstances and may permit presentence withdrawal for any reason when withdrawal would be fair and just.
- Stevenson failed to present a fair and just reason warranting withdrawal of his guilty plea.
Key quotations
“We therefore disavow Crawford s exclusive focus on the validity of the plea and affirm that the district court must consider the totality of the circumstances to determine whether permitting withdrawal of a guilty plea before sentencing would be fair and just.” (2015 NV 61 at 7)
“Considering the totality of the circumstances, we have no difficulty in concluding that Stevenson failed to present a sufficient reason to permit withdrawal of his plea.” (2015 NV 61 at 10)
Factual background
Stevenson faced numerous charges relating to sexual attacks on three women, with the State's evidence including victim identifications and a DNA match. He sought surveillance footage from a gentlemen's club, and after the district court denied his motion concerning the video, he pleaded guilty to two counts of attempted sexual assault. Before sentencing, he claimed that standby counsel had misled him about how long it would take to extract the video and moved to withdraw his plea. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court found that no one had lied to or misled Stevenson and that his testimony was not credible.
Procedural history
Stevenson was charged with offenses arising from sexual attacks on three women and represented himself with standby counsel. After the district court denied a motion concerning a surveillance video, Stevenson pleaded guilty to two counts of attempted sexual assault. Before sentencing, he sought to withdraw the plea, asserting that he had been misled about the accessibility of the video. Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court found that the plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent and denied withdrawal under Crawford v. State. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction, while disavowing Crawford's exclusive focus on plea validity.