BRANDYN DANDRE SMITH v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2025)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Brandyn Dandre Smith appeals from a judgment of conviction, entered pursuant to a guilty plea, of voluntary manslaughter with the use of a deadly weapon and conspiracy to commit robbery. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Tierra Danielle Jones, Judge.

Smith argues that the district court erred in denying a presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea. A defendant may move to withdraw a guilty plea before sentencing, NRS 176.165, and “a district court may grant a defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea before sentencing for any reason where permitting withdrawal would be fair and just,” Stevenson v. State, 131 Nev. 598, 604, 354 P.3d 1277, 1281 (2015). We give deference to the district court's factual findings if they are supported by the record, Stevenson, 131 Nev. at 604, 354 P.3d at 1281, and review the district court's decision on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea for an abuse of discretion, Molina v. State, 120 Nev. 185, 191, 87 P.3d 533, 538 (2004).

First, Smith asserts that he pleaded guilty because his family was being threatened in social media posts. After an evidentiary hearing on Smith's motion, the district court found Smith's testimony was not credible; it then concluded Smith failed to demonstrate a fair and just reason to withdraw his guilty plea. Smith has failed to demonstrate the district court reached the wrong conclusion. Smith acknowledged in both the guilty plea agreement and the plea canvass that he was not pleading as a result of threats or coercion. Smith later insisted he and his family had been repeatedly threatened over social media. However, the posts he included with the motion did not contain any overt threats, nor did Smith call any witnesses who could have testified about the threatening posts and calls.

The district court was in the best position to assess Smith's credibility regarding his plea canvass versus his later testimony and nothing in the record suggests the district court clearly erred. See Howard v. State, 106 Nev. 713, 722, 800 P.2d 175, 180 (1990) (deferring to district court's credibility determination unless clearly wrong), abrogated on other grounds by Harte v. State, 116 Nev. 1054, 13 P.3d 420 (2000). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion on this ground. See Molina, 120 Nev. at 191, 87 P.3d at 538.

Next, Smith asserts that actual innocence constituted a fair and just reason to withdraw his guilty plea. He presented sworn testimony from one of his codefendants that he was not involved in the charged conduct. A credible claim of factual innocence can be a fair and just reason to grant a motion to withdraw a guilty plea. See Mitchell v. State, 109 Nev. 137, 141, 848 P.2d 1060, 1062 (1993). After holding an evidentiary hearing, the district court found the codefendant's testimony was not credible and that determination is supported by the record. See Howard, 106 Nev. at 722, 800 P.2d at 180. The testimony contradicted both Smith and his codefendant's plea canvasses in which each defendant admitted to participating in the crime with each other and two other defendants. Additionally, evidence showed that Smith's phone was recovered from the assailants’ vehicle. Because the record supports the district court's findings made when it determined that Smith failed to demonstrate a credible claim of factual innocence, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding he failed to demonstrate a fair and just reason to withdraw his guilty plea.

Having considered Smith's contentions and concluding that they lack merit, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.