Summary of Means v. State, 120 Nev. Adv. Op. 101

Clyde Means was charged with one count of open or gross lewdness and three counts of sexual assault upon his nineteen year old son. At trial, the jury was empaneled but the district court conducted a hearing to determine the admissibility of Means’ prior bad acts. Because the district court ruled that the acts were admissible, Means, through his attorneys, negotiated a plea bargain. Means would plead guilty to one count of sexual assault in exchange for dismissal of the other charges. Means was informed that he would face two to twenty years in prison, fines, and be required to pay restitution. He was also told that probation was not available. However, Means was not informed that upon release from prison, he would be subject to lifetime supervision. The district court later sentenced him to the maximum penalty, which included post-release lifetime supervision. Means did not appeal his sentence. He filed a proper person petition for post conviction relief alleging that: 1) His guilty plea was not entered intelligently and voluntarily because he was on medication for manic depression; 2) His defense counsel’s assistance was ineffective for: a) failing to obtain a competency evaluation, and b) failing to directly appeal the conviction upon his request; 3) His sentence violated his constitutional right against cruel and unusual punishment; and 4) The lifetime supervision provision constituted double jeopardy and violated the equal protection clause. The district court appointed post-conviction counsel. After a hearing, the habeas petition was denied in part, but Means’ request for an evidentiary hearing on his counsels’ failure to pursue an appeal was granted. Before the hearing, Means requested his former counsels’ notes and files, but was only given the files without the notes. At this hearing, one of Means’ previous attorneys referred to his notes while being examined. Means then moved to inspect those notes and have them introduced into evidence. His motion was denied. Subsequently, Means’ petition for post-conviction relief was also denied. Means then appealed denial of his petition claiming the district court erred by: 1) not allowing access to the trial attorney’s notes; 2) applying the wrong burden of proof; 3) refusing to conduct a hearing on the validity of his plea; 4) concluding that his trial counsel had provided adequate assistance; and 5) denying his motion for a default judgment