Monroe (Anthony) v. State

1150 (1997) ("A district judge may, in his or her discretion, refuse to accept guilty pleas."); Graves v. State, 112 Nev. 118, 124, 912 P.2d 234, 238 (1996) (explaining that this court gives deference to a district court's "face-to- face" interactions with a defendant during a plea canvass). Second, Monroe contends that the district court erred by denying his motion for a new trial. See NRS 176.515. We review a district court's decision whether to grant a new trial for an abuse of discretion. State v. Carroll, 109 Nev. 975, 977, 860 P.2d 179, 180 (1993). After Monroe was convicted, he claimed that he received a letter from the victim recanting his trial testimony and moved for a new trial based upon the recantation. The district court conducted an evidentiary hearing, wherein the victim recanted his recantation, explaining that he drafted the false letter with Monroe's help to "cover his own back." The district court concluded that the victim's trial testimony was truthful and denied Monroe's motion for a new trial. See Callier v. Warden, 111 Nev. 976, 990, 901 P.2d 619, 627-28 (1995) (explaining the factors relevant to a motion for a new trial based upon a recantation). We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

Parraguirre

J. , J. Cherry

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A

cc: Hon. Brent T. Adams, District Judge David Kalo Neidert Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A e