Diaz (Alvin) v. State

We conclude that the district court did not err by determining that Diaz failed to demonstrate a manifest injustice sufficient to withdraw his plea. The holding in Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), that counsel is deficient for failing to advise his client regarding the immigration consequences of a guilty, plea constituted a new rule which only controls cases that were not final when it was decided. Chaidez v. United States, 568, U.S. „ 133 S. Ct. 1103, 1113 (2013); see Colwell v. State, 118 Nev. 807, 819-20, 59 P.3d 463, 472 (2002). Diaz's conviction became final when the judgment was entered, the availability of a direct appeal had been exhausted, and the time for a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court had expired. Colwell, 118 Nev. at 820, 59 P.3d at 472. We reject Diaz's assertion that his case was not final when Padilla was decided because the instant motion is incidental to trial court proceedings, as well as his assertion that the retroactivity analysis described in Colwell should not apply for the same reason, and we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

J. Hardesty p ......x._, Parraguirre

J.

SUPREME COURT

OF

NEVADA (0) 1947A cc: Hon. Elissa F. Cadish, District Judge

Law Offices of Anthony D. Guenther, Esq.

Attorney General/Carson City

Clark County District Attorney

Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF

NEVADA (0) 1947A