Appellant, while represented by counsel, signed a written plea agreement and pleaded guilty following the district court's canvass of his understanding of the agreement and the penalties associated with the charges. See Crawford, 117 Nev. at 722, 30 P.3d at 1126 (discussing the presumption of validity when a guilty plea is entered into on the advice of counsel and concluding that a thorough plea canvass coupled with a detailed written plea agreement supports a finding that the plea was entered into voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently). While appellant contends that he merely delivered memorized answers to the district court's canvass, as provided to him by counsel, this assertion is belied by the record. Appellant was actively engaged in the dialogue; he raised a question as to sentencing, and the district court clarified the possible sentencing parameters as well as the fact that the court was not bound by the sentencing stipulation. We perceive no abuse of discretion by the district court in denying appellant's presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Second, appellant claims that the district court improperly participated in the plea agreement by stating that it would, absent extraordinary circumstances, follow the sentencing stipulation. This comment came as the district court performed its canvass of appellant, after a deal had been struck and the guilty plea agreement signed. In Cripps v. State, 122 Nev. 764, 770-71, 137 P.3d 1187, 1191 (2006), on which appellant relies, we held that any judicial participation in the formulation of a plea agreement, save for an indication by the court if it is inclined to follow a particular sentencing recommendation, is prohibited. The district court did not participate in the formulation of the plea agreement but merely clarified the sentencing parameters for appellant

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

2 (0) I947A and stated its intention to follow the sentencin g stipulation absent extraordinary circumstances, all occurrin g after plea ne gotiations had been finalized. We discern no error b y the district court in this re gard. Third, appellant contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when trial counsel failed to file a written motion to withdraw the guilty plea. We have consistentl y declined to consider ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims on direct appeal unless the district court has held an evidentiary hearing on the matter or an evidentiar y hearing would be needless. See Pellegrini v. State, 117 Nev. 860, 883, 34 P.3d 519, 534 (2001). As neither exception exists here, we decline to address this claim. Having considered appellant's claims and concluded that he is not entitled to relief, we ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

°98 J. Gibbons

Lit 1VA3 J. Douglas

J. Saitta

cc: Hon. David B. Barker, District Jud ge Osvaldo E. Fumo, Chtd. Attorney General/Carson Cit y Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 3 =MM;IMENIENINE II MI