that the plea was not entered knowingly and intelligently. Bryant v. 

State, 102 Nev. 268, 272, 721 P.2d 364, 368 (1986); see also Hubbard v. 

State, 110 Nev. 671, 675, 877 P.2d 519, 521 (1994). In determining the 

validity of a guilty plea, this court looks to the totality of the 

circumstances. State v. Freese, 116 Nev. 1097, 1105, 13 P.3d 442, 448 

(2000); Bryant, 102 Nev. at 271, 721 P.2d at 367. 

Appellant claimed that his plea was not knowingly or 

voluntarily entered because the district court failed to adequately canvass 

him about the factual basis of the plea, he did not understand the charges 

against him, and he did not commit the offense of attempted sexual 

assault. We conclude that appellant failed to demonstrate that his plea 

was invalid. During the plea canvass, appellant affirmed that he 

understood that he was being charged with attempted sexual assault, he 

had read and understood the plea agreement, and he had no questions 

about it. The district court read the charge of attempted sexual assault to 

appellant and appellant affirmed that he was pleading guilty because he 

was actually guilty. Thus, the record belies his claim that he did not 

knowingly and voluntarily enter in the plea agreement. See Hargrove v. 

State, 100 Nev. 498, 502, 686 P.2d 222, 225 (1984). Furthermore, 

appellant received substantial benefits by pleading guilty. In exchange for 

his guilty plea to one count of attempted sexual assault, the State 

dismissed four counts of sexual assault as well as three other felony 

counts, did not oppose probation, and agreed to allow appellant to 

withdraw his plea upon successful completion of probation and enter a 

guilty plea for the non-sex offense of felony coercion. Therefore, the 

totality of the circumstances demonstrates that appellant's plea was valid, 

and the district court did not err in denying this claim. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A 
Next, appellant claimed that the district court relied on false 

assumptions at sentencing and that his sentence was excessive and 

disproportionate to the offense. These claims were not permissible in a 

post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus that challenges a 

judgment based upon a guilty plea. See NRS 34.810(1)(a). Therefore, the 

district court did not err in denying these claims. 

Finally, appellant also claimed that his due process rights 

were violated during the probation revocation proceedings. Specifically, 

he claimed that the State did not present sufficient evidence of the 

probation violations at the hearing and thus the revocation was not based 

on verified facts, the alleged violations did not warrant revocation, and the 

district court revoked his probation based on improper information and 

biased assumptions. Appellant failed to demonstrate that he was entitled 

to relief. Appellant stipulated at the hearing to the following probation 

violations: using marijuana, being behind in restitution payments, having 

impermissible contact with a probationer, and being arrested for 

obstructing a police officer. In light of his stipulation, he failed to 

demonstrate that there was insufficient evidence to justify the probation 

revocation or that the district court abused its discretion in revoking 

probation. See Lewis v. State, 90 Nev. 436, 438, 529 P.2d 796, 797 (1974) 

("The evidence and facts must reasonably satisfy the judge that the 

conduct of the probationer has not been as good as required by the 

conditions of probation."); see also MeNallen v. State, 91 Nev. 592, 540 

P.2d 121 (1975) (affirming revocation of probation where probationer did 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 1947A e 
not refute violation). Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not 

err in denying these claims. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 3 

J. 

Pickering 

"unciackat•StCy'rs'," J. 

Parraguirre 

Saitta 

cc: Hon. Jerome T. Tao, District Judge 

Brandyn William Gayler 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

J. 

3We deny appellant's proper person motions to stay all pending 

appeals, to join cases on appeal, and to clarify. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 4 

10) I 947A et,