demonstrate that counsel's performance was deficient in that it fell below
an objective standard of reasonableness, and resulting prejudice such that
there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, the outcome
of the proceedings would have been different. Strickland v. Washington,
466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984); Warden v. Lyons, 100 Nev. 430, 432-33, 683
P.2d 504, 505 (1984) (adopting the test in Strickland). Both components of
the inquiry must be shown, Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697, and the petitioner
must demonstrate the underlying facts by a preponderance of the
evidence, Means v. State, 120 Nev. 1001, 1012, 103 P.3d 25, 33 (2004).
Appellant failed to demonstrate that his trial counsel's
performance was deficient or that he was prejudiced. Counsel informed
the district court that there was an error relating to a previous conviction
and informed the court that the PSI could only be amended with a court
order. The district court acknowledged that the PSI contained an error,
ordered it to be corrected, and proceeded to sentence appellant to the
sentence stipulated to in the guilty plea agreement. Appellant failed to
demonstrate a reasonable probability of a different outcome had counsel
performed further actions relating to the correction of the PSI. Therefore,
the district court did not err in denying this claim.
Next, appellant claimed that the district court judge was
biased and his sentence was excessive. These claims were not permissible
in a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus that challenges a
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
EMI ar:em
judgment based upon a guilty plea. See NRS 34.810(1)(a). Therefore, the
district court did not err in denying these claims. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2
Gibbons
Saitta
cc: Hon. Douglas W. Herndon, District Judge
Lonnie Jay Loucks
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
2 Appellant failed to demonstrate that the district court erred in
denying his motion for the appointment of counsel or his motion to amend,
which requested that the district court appoint counsel to file an amended
petition. See NRS 34.750. Further, the district court did not deny
appellant's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and therefore, appellant
was not an aggrieved party who may seek appellate relief regarding that
motion. See NRS 177.015.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A