and, if true, would entitle him to relief. Hargrove v. State, 100 Nev. 498,
502-03, 686 P.2d 222, 225 (1984).
First, appellant argues that his counsel was ineffective for
failing to investigate his competency. Appellant fails to demonstrate that
his trial counsel's performance was deficient or that he was prejudiced.
Appellant was evaluated prior to entry of his plea and determined to be
competent. Counsel also requested that the district court consider
additional evidence regarding appellant's competency at the sentencing
hearing, but the district court denied that request. Appellant fails to
demonstrate a reasonable probability of a different outcome had counsel
performed further investigation related to his competency because
appellant failed to show that he did not have the ability to consult with his
attorney with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and that he
did not have a factual understanding of the proceedings against him. See
Melchor-Gloria v. State, 99 Nev. 174, 179-80, 660 P.2d 109, 113 (1983)
(citing Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402 (1960)). Therefore, the
district court did not err in denying this claim without conducting an
evidentiary hearing.
Second, appellant argues that his counsel was ineffective for
failing to hire an expert to evaluate his mental health during the crime to
show that appellant had a reasonable belief that the victim had consented
to the sexual activity. Appellant fails to demonstrate either deficiency or
prejudice as he does not provide any information as to what a mental
health evaluation regarding appellant's mental state at the time of the
crime would have revealed, and bare claims are insufficient to
demonstrate a petitioner is entitled to relief. See Hargrove, 100 Nev. at
502, 686 P.2d at 225. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying
this claim without conducting an evidentiary hearing.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
'41 r-M5'.:R7r,r4fEt ;AMT77t ''''-'="r•A
-
Third, appellant argues that his counsel failed to file a direct
appeal despite appellant's expression of dissatisfaction with his conviction.
We conclude that the district court erred in denying this claim without
conducting an evidentiary hearing. There were sufficient allegations in
appellant's petition and in the record to show that appellant had
expressed dissatisfaction with his conviction during the sentencing
hearing. Expression of dissatisfaction with the conviction may require
counsel to file a direct appeal. See Toston v. State, 127 Nev. „ 267
P.3d 795, 800-01 (2011). Therefore, an evidentiary hearing is necessary to
ascertain whether counsel and appellant discussed proceeding to a direct
appeal and whether appellant declined to proceed after such discussion.
Accordingly, we reverse the district court's denial of this claim and
remand for an evidentiary hearing on this claim.' Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED IN
PART AND REVERSED IN PART AND REMAND this matter to the
district court for proceedings consistent with this order.
J.
Hardesty
Parraguirre
'If the district court determines that appellant was deprived of a
direct appeal, the district court should provide the remedy set forth in
NRAP 4(c).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
cc: Hon. Brent T. Adams, District Judge
Story Law Group
Attorney General/Carson City
Washoe County District Attorney
Washoe District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A
EL_ .,74111'
7