probability that, but for counsel's errors, petitioner would not have
pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. Hill v. Lockhart,
474 U.S. 52, 58-59 (1985); Kirksey v. State, 112 Nev. 980, 988, 923 P.2d
1102, 1107 (1996). Both components of the inquiry must be shown.
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 697 (1984).
First, appellant claimed that counsel was ineffective for failing
to bring appellant's file to a hearing on appellant's motion to withdraw his
plea. Appellant failed to demonstrate prejudice, as he did not show that
counsel's performance subsequent to the entry of the guilty plea affected
appellant's decision to plead guilty. Thus, the district court did not err in
denying this claim.
Second, appellant claimed that counsel was ineffective for
failing to research and understand an intoxication defense. Appellant
failed to allege any specific facts to support this claim and thus failed to
demonstrate deficiency or prejudice. See Hargrove v. State, 100 Nev. 498,
502, 686 P.2d 222, 225 (1984) (holding that no relief is warranted where
petitioner raises "bare' or 'naked' claims for relief, unsupported by any
specific factual allegations that would, if true, have entitled him to
withdrawal of his plea"). Therefore, the district court did not err in
denying this claim.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A <
For the reasons set forth above, we conclude that the district
court did not err in denying the petition. 2 Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 3
Hardesty
at..A.A J.
Parraguirre
J.
Cherry
LI
2 The district court also denied the petition on the grounds that it
failed to comply with the requirements of NRS 34.730 and NRS 34.735.
On appeal, appellant has attempted to amend the defects in his petition.
Because we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the
petition on the merits, we need not address whether the petition contained
pleading defects.
3 We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in
proper person to the clerk of this court in this matter, and we conclude
that no relief based upon those submissions is warranted. To the extent
that appellant has attempted to present claims or facts in those
submissions which were not previously presented in the proceedings
below, we have declined to consider them in the first instance.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
cc: Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge
Theodore A. Pearil, III
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A