Armenta-Carpio v. State
129 Nev. 531
| Nev. | 2013Background
- Armenta-Carpio was charged with multiple counts relating to sexual conduct with his daughter over five years.
- During trial, defense conceded some sexual contact occurred but disputed the extent and number of incidents alleged.
- Defense strategy was explained to the jury and the court, focusing on overcharging rather than disputing any contact.
- Outside the jury, the court asked whether Armenta-Carpio agreed to the concession strategy; Armenta-Carpio affirmed.
- Jury found him guilty on all counts; sentencing merged the attempted-sexual-assault count with a lewdness count.
- On appeal, Armenta-Carpio challenged the district court’s canvass as inadequate under Hernandez, seeking relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the canvass under Hernandez required and adequate? | Armenta-Carpio argues canvass was inadequate under Hernandez. | State maintains no error if strategy is permissible and canvass not required post-Nixon. | Hernandez overruled; canvass not required; conviction affirmed. |
| Does Nixon undermine Hernandez and justify no canvass for concession strategy? | Armenta-Carpio contends Nixon supports needing a canvass for concession strategy. | State argues Nixon limits only to guilty pleas, not concession strategies. | Nixon supports no mandatory canvass for concession strategy; Hernandez overruled. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hernandez v. State, 124 Nev. 978 (2008) (concession of guilt requires a voluntary, knowing canvass)
- Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (2004) (concession strategy is not equivalent to a guilty plea)
- Perez, 522 S.E.2d 102 (1999) (concession of guilt as a waiver of rights; need for knowing consent)
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) (guilty plea requires knowing and voluntary waiver of rights)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective-assistance standard for counsel)
- Miller v. Burk, 188 P.3d 1112 (2008) (stare decisis considerations in Nevada)
- Adam v. State, 261 P.3d 1063 (2011) (Nevada precedent on appellate review and canvass)
- Rupert v. Stienne, 528 P.2d 1015 (1974) (stare decisis considerations in Nevada)
- Argentena Consol. Mining Co. v. Jolley Urga Wirth Woodbury & Standish, 216 P.3d 779 (2009) (departure from stare decisis when necessary to avoid error)