REESE v. STATE (2020)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

This is an appeal from a district court order denying a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed on June 27, 2019, and an amended postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed on July 31, 2019. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Michael Villani, Judge.

Quinton Reese claimed that he was wrongly convicted of conspiracy to commit murder because he did not have any coconspirators and there was no evidence of a conspiracy. The district court found that Reese's claim was improper and meritless for the following reasons. First, his judgment of conviction was entered pursuant to a guilty plea and his claim did not allege that counsel was ineffective or challenge the validity of the guilty plea; therefore, this claim was not properly raised in a postconviction habeas petition. Second, he agreed to waive all defects in the pleadings and to plead guilty to conspiracy to commit murder in order to receive a more favorable outcome. The record supports the district court's findings, and we conclude the district court did not err by dismissing this claim. See NRS 34.810(1)(a).

Reese also claimed that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the conspiracy-to-commit-murder charge and failing to adequately investigate his case. To state a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel sufficient to invalidate a judgment of conviction based on a guilty plea, a petitioner must show (1) counsel's performance was deficient in that it fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) a reasonable probability, but for counsel's errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58-59 (1985). Both components of the ineffective-assistance inquiry—deficiency and prejudice—must be shown. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 697 (1984). Reese did not allege or show that, but for counsel's alleged errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err by denying this claim.

Having concluded Reese is not entitled to relief, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.