SPOTTEDBEAR v. STATE (2021)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Spottedbear argues that his direct appeal should be treated as a motion to set aside his plea. Because Spottedbear failed to challenge the validity of his plea below, we will not consider such a challenge in the first instance on direct appeal. See Harris v. State, 130 Nev. 435, 448, 329 P.3d 619, 628 (2014) (“[A] post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus provides the exclusive remedy for a challenge to the validity of the guilty plea made after sentencing.”).

Spottedbear next argues that we should overrule Jenkins v. State, 110 Nev. 865, 877 P.2d 1063 (1994), and adopt a reasonable-mistake defense to the crime of statutory sexual seduction. Spottedbear contends that the proliferation of photo-altering and photo-sharing technology and its effect on one's ability to assess the age of the photos subject warrants such action. This court cannot overrule Nevada Supreme Court precedent. See People v. Solorzano, 63 Cal. Rptr. 3d 659, 664 (2007), as modified (Aug. 15, 2007) (“The Court of Appeal must follow, and has no authority to overrule, the decisions of the California Supreme Court.” (quotation marks and internal punctuation omitted)); see also Hubbard v. United States, 514 U.S. 695, 720 (1995) (Rehnquist, C.J., dissenting) (observing stare decisis “applies a fortiori to enjoin lower courts to follow the decision of a higher court”). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.