Felix (Octavio) v. State

determination whether withdrawal was warranted for an abuse of discretion, Molina V. State, 120 Nev. 185, 191, 87 P.3d 533, 538 (2004). Even assuming, without deciding, that the doctrine of laches did not preclude consideration of Felix's motion, he is not entitled to relief because "Padilla does not have retroactive effect." Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. „ 133 S. Ct. 1103, 1105 (2013). We reject Felix's assertion that his case is not final because the instant motion is tantamount to a direct appeal. Moreover, the record does not demonstrate that Felix was affirmatively misadvised of the immigration consequences of pleading guilty. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

J. Hardesty

Douglas

Cherry Chut J.

cc: Hon. James M. Bixler, 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 e