Castro (Ezequiel) v. State

assuming that laches does not preclude consideration of appellant's motion on the merits, see Hart v. State, 116 Nev. 558, 563-65, 1 P.3d 969, 972 (2000) ("[C]onsideration of the equitable doctrine of laches is necessary in determining whether a defendant has shown 'manifest injustice' that would permit withdrawal of a plea after sentencing."), we conclude that he is not entitled to relief because his conviction became final prior to Padilla and he cannot benefit from its holding as Padilla does not apply retroactively. Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. „ 133 S. Ct. 1103, 1113 (2013). Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not err by denying appellant's motion, and we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

/ J.

Parrag-uirre

(VtA

Cherry cc: Chief Judge, The Eighth Judicial District C -Ourt Hon. J. Charles Thompson, Senior Judge

Don P. Chairez

Attorney General/Carson City

Clark County District Attorney

Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF

NEVADA (0) 1947A