IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

HERBERT DON BROOKS, No. 75778 Appellant, vs. FILED THE STATE OF NEVADA, JUN 2 6 2019 Respondent.

ELIZA.F;T:- A. BROWN CLERK OF -i•LIPREME COURT ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE C:LE CSI DEP.-Te This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a guilty plea, of attempted burglary and attempted robbery. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Carolyn Ellsworth, Judge.

Appellant Herbert Brooks contends the district court abused its discretion when it denied his presentencing motion to withdraw his guilty plea. A defendant may move to withdraw a guilty plea before sentencing, NRS 176.165, and "a district court may grant a defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea before sentencing for any reason where permitting withdrawal would be fair and just," Stevenson v. State, 131 Nev. 598, 604, 354 P.3d 1277, 1281 (2015). When making this determination, "the district court must consider the totality of the circumstances." Id. at 603, 354 P.3d at 1281. "This court will not reverse a district court's determination concerning the validity of a plea absent a clear abuse of discretion." Johnson v. State, 123 Nev. 139, 144, 159 P.3d 1096, 1098 (2007).

Before pleading guilty, Brooks reviewed the plea agreement with counsel and the district court thoroughly canvassed him. He confirmed in writing and at his plea canvass that he understood his plea agreement, the nature of his charges, and the possible penalties. He expressly confirmed that no one forced or coerced him into pleading guilty and that he understood sentencing was strictly up to the court.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A Nonetheless, Brooks argued in his motion that counsel coerced him into pleading guilty by assuring him that he would get probation without first investigating his criminal history. The only evidence in support of these allegations was Brooks's testimony at the evidentiary hearing, which counsel directly refuted. The district court accepted counsel's testimony as true, which it was entitled to do. Molina v. State, 120 Nev. 185, 192, 87 P.3d 533, 538 (2004) CThe district court was the sole judge of the credibility of the two opposing views aired at the hearing on [defendant's] motion, and the district court was entitled to accept [defense counsel's] representations as true."). The district court then denied Brooks's motion.

The record before this court supports the district court's conclusion. Additionally, the district court appropriately considered the totality of the circumstances in making its determination, as required by Stevenson, 131 Nev. at 603, 354 P.3d at 1281. We therefore conclude that Brooks has not demonstrated that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

J.

Parraguirre J.

Cadish

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) I.947A cc: Hon. Carolyn Ellsworth, District Judge Nguyen & Lay Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA i0) 047A •Ath3.

, re7 111M1111111s