supported by substantial evidence and not clearly erroneous but review
the court's application of the law to those facts de novo. Lader v. Warden,
121 Nev. 682, 686, 120 P.3d 1164, 1166 (2005).
First, appellant claimed that his counsel did not conduct any
investigation before the guilty plea. Appellant failed to demonstrate
deficiency or prejudice as he made only a bare claim that counsel did not
investigate and failed to provide any information that would have altered
his decision to enter a guilty plea that counsel would have uncovered
through reasonably diligent investigation. See Hargrove v. State, 100 Nev.
498, 502-03, 686 P.2d 222, 225 (1984). Therefore, the district court did not
err in denying this claim.
Second, appellant claimed his counsel was ineffective for
advising him to plead guilty to a dismissed charge of felon in possession of
a firearm. Appellant failed to demonstrate that his counsel's performance
was deficient or that he was prejudiced. At the evidentiary hearing,
counsel explained that the firearm charge was initially dismissed without
prejudice, but that the State properly recharged appellant with that crime.
Appellant failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that he would
have refused to plead guilty and would have insisted on going to trial had
counsel raised further challenges to the felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm
charge as appellant admitted to the police that he owned the firearm.
Therefore, the district court did not err in denying this claim.
Third, appellant claimed that counsel misinformed him
regarding the sentence he would receive. Appellant failed to demonstrate
that his counsel's performance was deficient or that he was prejudiced.
Appellant was informed in the guilty plea agreement of the possible
sentences and acknowledged at the plea canvass that he had not been
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
promised a particular sentence. Appellant failed to demonstrate a
reasonable probability that he would have refused to plead guilty and
would have insisted on going to trial had counsel had further discussions
with appellant regarding the possible sentences. Therefore, the district
court did not err in denying this claim.
Fourth, appellant claimed that counsel improperly informed
him he could not be prosecuted in federal court for the firearm-possession
charge if he pleaded guilty in state court. Appellant failed to demonstrate
that his counsel's performance was deficient or that he was prejudiced.
Appellant was informed in the guilty plea agreement that the State had
agreed not to refer appellant for federal prosecution for the firearm-
possession charge. Appellant did not allege that he has been prosecuted
federally, but merely that he was concerned that the possibility exists
despite his guilty plea. Given appellant's mere speculation that he may be
charged and the lack of evidence that the State violated its agreement
with appellant or that counsel misinformed appellant, he failed to
demonstrate a reasonable probability that he would have refused to plead
guilty and would have insisted on going to trial had counsel discussed with
appellant the possibility of federal prosecution in more detail. Therefore,
the district court did not err in denying this claim.
Fifth, appellant claimed that counsel did not inform him of the
grand jury proceedings. Appellant failed to demonstrate that he was
prejudiced. Given appellant's statement to the police admitting guilt and
his guilty plea to the charges, he failed to demonstrate a reasonable
probability of a different outcome had counsel discussed the notice of the
grand jury proceedings with appellant. See United States v. Mechanik,
' SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
475 U.S. 66, 70 (1986); Lisle v. State, 113 Nev. 540, 551-52, 937 P.2d 473,
480 (1998). Therefore, the district court did not err in denying this claim.
Sixth, appellant claimed that counsel failed to prepare for the
sentencing hearing, did not present mitigation evidence at the sentencing
hearing, and did not review the presentence investigation report with him.
Appellant failed to demonstrate that his counsel's performance was
deficient or that he was prejudiced. At the sentencing hearing, counsel
presented to the court a letter from appellant's sister, argued that the
presentence investigation report did not convey an accurate picture of
appellant and informed the court at length what he believed the report did
not contain, and argued for a lenient sentence. See Hargrove, 100 Nev. at
502-03, 686 P.2d at 225. Appellant failed to demonstrate a reasonable
probability of a different outcome at the hearing had counsel prepared
further for the sentencing hearing. Therefore, the district court did not
err in denying this claim.
Seventh, appellant claimed that counsel failed to object to
inaccurate gang affiliation information contained in the presentence
investigation report. Appellant failed to demonstrate that his counsel's
performance was deficient or that he was prejudiced. Appellant made a
bare claim that the report contained inaccurate gang information and did
not explain specifically what information was inaccurate. Bare claims are
insufficient to demonstrate a petitioner is entitled to relief. Id. The
district court made no reference at the sentencing hearing to appellant's
alleged involvement in gang activities, and therefore, appellant failed to
demonstrate a reasonable probability of a different outcome at the
sentencing hearing had counsel raised further arguments regarding
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A
inaccuracies in the presentence investigation report. Therefore, the
district court did not err in denying this claim.
Eighth, appellant claimed that his counsel was ineffective for
failing to file a notice of appeal. Appellant failed to demonstrate that his
counsel's performance was deficient or that he was prejudiced. Counsel
testified at the evidentiary hearing that, while he did not specifically
remember discussing an appeal with appellant, it is his practice to discuss
an appeal with his clients. Counsel testified that he did not recall
appellant requesting him to appeal the conviction. The district court
concluded that appellant had not been improperly deprived of a direct
appeal and substantial evidence supports that decision. Therefore, the
district court did not err in denying this claim.
Ninth, appellant claimed that the errors of counsel
cumulatively amount to ineffective assistance of counsel. Appellant failed
to demonstrate deficiency or prejudice for any of his claims and he fails to
demonstrate that any errors of counsel cumulatively amount to ineffective
assistance of counsel.
Having considered appellant's contentions and concluded they
are without merit, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
Gibbons
ut-et )44 2 J. J.
Douglas Saitta
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
5
(0) 1947A
cc: Hon. Valerie Adair, District Judge
Ramon A. Morga
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OP
NEVADA
6
(01 V,47A
,