The State of Nevada v. Clyde Means

Las Vegas, Nevada criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with attempted sexual assault upon his nineteen-year-old son.



The victim alleged that Means had sexually assaulted him on at least three separate occasions while they lived in Nevada. Means had first pleaded not guilty to one count of open or gross lewdness and three counts of sexual assault.



At trial, after the jury was empaneled but before any evidence was presented, the district court conducted a hearing outside the jury's presence to determine whether to admit evidence of Means's prior bad acts.1 After the district court ruled that the prior bad acts were admissible, the State and defendant, through his attorneys, negotiated a plea bargain. In return for Means's plea of guilty to attempted sexual assault, the State agreed to dismiss all other charges.



Pursuant to the agreement, Means entered a plea of guilty. During the plea canvass, Means stated that his guilty plea was not the result of any threats or persuasion, but was his own idea. The district court informed Means that he would face two to twenty years in prison, up to a $10,000 fine and be required to pay restitution; Means was also told that probation was not available to him. Means indicated that he understood. The district court did not inform Means that he would be subject to lifetime supervision by the State's Division of Parole and Probation upon his release from prison.



At Means's sentencing hearing, the district court noted that the statutory sentence was between two to twenty years incarceration in prison and lifetime supervision upon release. The State Division of Parole and Probation recommended that Means be sentenced to a minimum of 57 months and a maximum of 144 months incarceration with lifetime supervision. The victim requested that Means receive the maximum penalty.2 The district court sentenced Means to the maximum penalty and informed him that he would be subject to lifetime supervision upon his release from prison.



* * *



1. POST-CONVICTION RELIEF. EVIDENCE DISCOVERY. The court addresses whether a post-conviction habeas petitioner should be permitted to inspect and introduce his former attorney's notes after counsel used them to refresh his recollection during the evidentiary hearing, concluding that the denial of access was erroneous.



2. POST-CONVICTION RELIEF. BURDEN OF PROOF. The case examines the appropriate burden of proof for a petitioner alleging ineffective assistance of counsel in post-conviction proceedings, determining that claims must be established by a preponderance of the evidence rather than by clear and convincing evidence.



3. POST-CONVICTION RELIEF. default judgment. The court considers whether a default judgment is warranted when the State fails to timely respond to a petition for post-conviction relief, affirming the district court's decision not to grant such judgment in this context.



4. POST-CONVICTION RELIEF. GUILTY PLEA VALIDITY. The ruling evaluates claims regarding the voluntariness and intelligence of a guilty plea in light of allegedly not being informed about lifetime supervision upon release, determining that an evidentiary hearing is warranted to revisit this claim.



5. POST-CONVICTION RELIEF. INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL. The court contemplates the legal obligation of defense attorneys to file an appeal when a convicted defendant expresses a desire to do so, holding that failure to do so constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel if the request is established.

Reversed and remanded