State, 112 Nev. 980, 988, 923 P.2d 1102, 1107 (1996) (internal quotation
marks and emphasis omitted). In his petition below, Wingo admitted that
he "understood that the maximum penalty was life" and his signed plea
agreement states that "I understand that the Court is not bound by the
agreement of the parties." In light of this signed guilty plea agreement
and Wingo's admission, he failed to establish by a preponderance of the
evidence that there was a reasonable probability that he would have
insisted on going to trial. Accordingly, this factual allegation, even if true,
did not entitle Wingo to relief and the district court did not err by denying
him an evidentiary hearing.
Second, Wingo alleged that his guilty plea agreement and plea
canvass did not make it clear to him that the district court could impose a
life sentence. Although Wingo claimed in his petition that he was not
well-educated, he did not contend that he is illiterate or explain why he
was unable to understand the terms of his guilty plea agreement. Having
reviewed Wingo's guilty plea agreement, we conclude that its terms are
clear. Accordingly, this claim is belied by the record and did not entitle
Wingo to an evidentiary hearing.
Third, Wingo alleged that his counsel's investigator coerced
him into pleading guilty by telling him he would never see his wife and
daughter again. This statement was not coercive. See Brady v. United
States, 397 U.S. 742, 750-51 (1970). Had Wingo not pleaded guilty and
insisted on going to trial, he faced a possible sentence of life in prison
without the possibility of parole. NRS 200.030(4)(b)(1). Accordingly, this
allegation, if true, would not have entitled Wingo to relief.
Finally, Wingo alleged that counsel failed to investigate
certain individuals who may have had a motive to commit the murder.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
iN.Z=,M{111"1
Wingo failed to name these individuals in his petition or explain what
evidence such an investigation would have yielded. Such "'naked'
allegations" did not entitle Wingo to an evidentiary hearing, see Hargrove,
100 Nev. at 502, 686 P.2d at 225, or satisfy his burden to prove deficiency
and prejudice, see Kirksey, 112 Nev. at 988, 923 P.2d at 1107.
Having considered Wingo's contentions and concluded that the
district court did not err by denying his claims of ineffective assistance of
counsel without an evidentiary hearing, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
J.
Hardesty
cc: Hon. Brent T. Adams, District Judge
Edward T. Reed
Attorney General/Carson City
Washoe County District Attorney
Washoe District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
NEVIIMEMNIZINEE MIN