472 P3D 187 - Devinney (Manuel) Vs. State

       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA


MANUEL DANA DEVINNEY,                                   No. 77746
Appellant,
vs.
THE STATE OF NEVADA,
                                                          FILED
Respondent.                                               SEP 1 8 2020
                                                                  A. 13PCY!.AIN
                                                                  REME: COURT

                                                           DEP6
                        ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
            This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a
jury verdict, of felony driving under the influence with one or more prior
felony DUI convictions. Fourth Judicial District Court, Elko County; Alvin
R. Kacin, Judge.
            Appellant argues that his 1991 Idaho felony DUI conviction was
constitutionally infirm, and consequently, it should not have been used to
enhance the instant DUI conviction pursuant to NRS 484C.410.
Specifically, appellant argues that his guilty plea was invalid due to
insufficient notice of the charges and the consequences of the plea. We
disagree.
            The State presented prima facie evidence of the prior
conviction. The district court found that appellant failed to rebut the
presumption of regularity afforded the prior felony DUI conviction by
demonstrating that it was constitutionally infirm. See Dressler v. State,

107 Nev. 686, 697-98

819 P.2d 1288, 1295-96

 (1991). The district court also
found that appellant was represented by counsel and the spirit of
constitutional principles was respected in the earlier proceeding.                See



      1Pursuant to NRAP 34(f)(1), we have determined that oral argument
is not warranted in this appeal.
Davenport v. State,

112 Nev. 475, 477-78

915 P.2d 878

, 880 (1996). The
record supports the district court's findings. Appellant's answers in the
guilty plea questionnaire did not show that the 1991 plea was invalid,
particularly when he completed the questionnaire before entering his guilty
plea in the earlier DUI proceeding and he was represented by counsel in
that proceeding. And in the same questionnaire, appellant indicated that
he understood the charges and the consequences of his guilty plea.
Appellant likewise did not demonstrate that the questionnaire proved
ineffective assistance of counsel in the 1991 proceedings, and thus, he failed
to carry his burden of demonstrating constitutional infirmity. See generally
Hill v. Lockhart,

474 U.S. 52, 58-59

 (1985). Therefore, we conclude that the
district court did not err by admitting the prior felony DUI conviction for
enhancement purposes, and we
            ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.'




                                  "Ael
                        Parraguirre


                           , J.
Hardesty



cc:   Hon. Alvin R. Kacin, District Judge
      Elko County Public Defender
      Attorney General/Carson City
      Elko County District Attorney
      Elko County Clerk



       'Given our disposition, we need not reach appellant's argument
relating to the validity of a misdemeanor DUI conviction.

                                      2