LACEY ANN MEINKE v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2026)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Lacey Ann Meinke appeals from a judgment of conviction, entered pursuant to a no contest plea, of trafficking in a Schedule I controlled substance, 100 grams or more but less than 400 grams. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Barry L. Breslow, Judge.

Meinke argues the district court erred in refusing to consider her oral request to withdraw her plea before the sentence was announced. The State contends the district court did not err because “it [was] unclear whether Meinke even wanted to withdraw her plea.” After review, we agree with the State.

Meinke pleaded no contest to trafficking in a Schedule I controlled substance, 100 grams or more but less than 400 grams. Meinke entered her plea on July 24, 2025, and her sentencing hearing was held approximately three months later on October 21, 2025. After evidence and argument were taken, the district court indicated it was going to take a 15-minute recess before announcing the sentence. At this time, defense counsel indicated that Meinke had “expressed a desire to withdraw her guilty plea.” Meinke had not previously filed a motion to withdraw her plea or otherwise indicated to the court that she wished to withdraw her plea. Although counsel represented he had previously discussed filing a motion to withdraw plea with Meinke on multiple occasions, counsel stated he did not file a motion prior to the sentencing hearing because he never received confirmation from Meinke that she wanted him to file a motion. As a result of counsel's statements, the district court postponed the sentencing hearing for approximately three hours.

When the proceedings resumed, counsel indicated that he had discussed with Meinke “whether she wants [him] to pursue this relief or not” and that he still did not “have a straight answer.” After some discussion about whether such a request would be proper at this stage of the proceedings, defense counsel asked Meinke, “Before we go down that road, I just want to know, do you want me to make the argument? Do you want to withdraw your plea?” The district court then asked Meinke if she wanted counsel “to attempt to have the Court consider” a motion to withdraw plea. The district court recognized that Meinke was “very emotional” and stated that it was trying “to make sure that we're not forcing you to do something that you don't want to do.” The record provided by the parties on appeal does not indicate Meinke addressed or answered the questions posed by her counsel or the court, and the district court ultimately stated it would not consider such a motion, regardless of whether Meinke wanted to file such a motion.

The record indicates that Meinke was uncertain as to whether she wanted to withdraw her plea and never unequivocally requested such relief despite having ample opportunity to do so, both prior to and during the sentencing hearing. We do not believe the district court was required to indefinitely suspend sentencing while awaiting Meinke's decision as to whether she wanted to withdraw her plea, and Meinke cites no authority holding the same. Based on the foregoing, we cannot conclude the district court abused its discretion by failing to construe counsel's statements as an oral motion to withdraw plea or by failing to rule on whether Meinke had a fair and just reason to withdraw her plea.¹ See Stevenson v. State, 131 Nev. 598, 604, 354 P.3d 1277, 1281 (2015) (stating “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”). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Having concluded Meinke did not unequivocally request to withdraw her plea, we further conclude that the district court did not err by declining to hold an evidentiary hearing on the matter.