Dieudonne (Abell) v. State

application of the law to those facts de novo. Lader v. Warden, 121 Nev. 682, 686, 120 P.3d 1164, 1166 (2005). 1 Dieudonne contended that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by coercing him into accepting his plea agreement by "strongly pressuring" him into believing that his counts would run concurrently. The district court concluded that counsel did not pressure or coerce Dieudonne into accepting the plea and that he failed to establish deficiency or prejudice. Having reviewed the record, including counsel's testimony that he made no promises to Dieudonne that the counts would run concurrently, we conclude that counsel did not perform deficiently. Furthermore, Dieudonne did not testify during the evidentiary hearing or argue on appeal that, but for his belief that the counts would run concurrently, he would have insisted on going to trial and risked being convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Accordingly, we conclude that counsel was not ineffective. Second, Dieudonne contends that the district court erred by concluding that his guilty plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered. "On appeal from the district court's determination, we will presume that the lower court correctly assessed the validity of the

'We note that post-conviction counsel's opening brief is devoid of any reference to Nevada law, including the relevant standard of review for Dieudonne's claims of error. NRAP 28(a)(9) requires opening briefs to contain a concise statement of the applicable standard of review and citation to the relevant authorities upon which appellant relies. As counsel acknowledged in his attorney certification, failure to follow the requirements of the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure may result in sanctions. See NRAP 28.2(b).

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A

INE5JESWAtiffill

plea, and we will not reverse the lower court's determination absent a clear showing of an abuse of discretion." Bryant v. State, 102 Nev. 268, 272, 721 P.2d 364, 368 (1986), limited on other grounds by Smith v. State, 110 Nev. 1009, 1010 n.1, 879 P.2d 60, 61 n.1 (1994); see also State v. Freese, 116 Nev. 1097, 1106, 13 P.3d 442, 448 (2000). Having reviewed the entire record and the totality of the facts and circumstances surrounding the plea, including the district court's thorough plea canvass and Dieudonne's testimony that he knew the judge had the discretion to sentence him to consecutive counts and life in prison, we conclude that the district court correctly assessed the validity of Dieudonne's plea and did not abuse its discretion. Having considered Dieudonne's contentions and concluded that the district court did not err by denying his post-conviction petition, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Hardesty

cc: Hon. Doug Smith, District Judge Keith C. Brower Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

3 (0) 1947A

AARKKA I rAT - MS=