TERRELL MCLAURIN v. JEREMY BEAN WARDEN AND THE STATE OF NEVADA (2026)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Terrell McLaurin appeals from a district court order denying a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed on July 18, 2025. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Tina Talim, Judge.

In his petition, McLaurin asserted six claims for relief: (1) his plea was not knowing or voluntary because he did not understand the consequences that would apply if he violated probation; (2) the sentencing court abused its discretion by revoking his probation rather than applying graduated sanctions; (3) the sentencing court abused its discretion by sentencing him to a prison term of eight to twenty years; (4) the sentencing court abused its discretion by revoking his probation based on offenses that the State voluntarily dismissed after a mistrial; (5) his original trial counsel provided ineffective assistance because she coerced him into entering the guilty plea agreement; and (6) his second trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to timely perfect an appeal. McLaurin also requested the district court conduct an evidentiary hearing on his claims. The district court denied McLaurin's petition and his request for an evidentiary hearing.

McLaurin's arguments on appeal pertain solely to the sentencing court's revocation of his probation. To the extent McLaurin's appellate arguments can be interpreted as challenging the district court's denial of the claims in his petition related to the sentencing court's revocation of his probation,¹ those claims fell outside the scope of claims permissible in a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus stemming from a guilty plea. See NRS 34.810(1)(a) (stating that such a petition may only allege “that the plea was involuntarily or unknowingly entered or that the plea was entered without effective assistance of counsel”); see also Gonzales v. State, 137 Nev. 398, 403-04, 492 P.3d 556, 562 (2021) (holding that a guilty plea does not waive a postconviction habeas claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing). Accordingly, we conclude the district court did not err by denying McLaurin's petition, and we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   McLaurin does not present any cogent argument on appeal that the district court erred in denying those claims unrelated to the sentencing court's revocation of his probation without conducting an evidentiary hearing.