SASHINGER v. STATE (2024)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Sashinger was convicted pursuant to a guilty plea, and the district court dismissed Sashinger's petition because it did not challenge the validity of her guilty plea or allege that her plea was entered without the effective assistance of counsel as required by NRS 34.810(1)(a). Sashinger argues the district court erred by dismissing her petition because the court failed to consider whether her claims fell within the scope of NRS 177.015(4). Under NRS 177.015(4), a defendant who has knowingly and voluntarily entered a guilty plea in a criminal case is prohibited from appealing a final judgment or verdict “unless the appeal is based upon reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional or other grounds that challenge the legality of the proceedings.” Sashinger's postconviction habeas petition was not an appeal from a final judgment or verdict; rather, her postconviction habeas petition was a challenge to the validity of the judgment of conviction or sentence and was thus subject to the procedural requirements of NRS Chapter 34. See NRS 34.720. NRS 177.015(4) has no bearing on whether Sashinger's petition satisfied the requirements of NRS 34.810(1)(a). Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err by failing to consider whether Sashinger's claims were permissible under NRS 177.015(4), and Sashinger fails to demonstrate the district court erred by dismissing her petition.¹ Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Sashinger does not challenge the district court's determination that her petition was not based upon allegations that her plea was involuntarily or unknowingly entered or that her plea was entered without the effective assistance of counsel.