Mayo (Demondray) v. State ( 2015 )

 effect they had on his mental state, or how they rendered his plea
involuntary. Therefore, appellant fails to demonstrate that the district
court erred by denying these claims without conducting an evidentiary
hearing. 2 See Hargrove v. State, 100 Nev. 498, 502, 686 P.2d 222, 225
(1984).
Second, appellant contends that the district court erred by
denying his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. To prove ineffective
assistance of counsel in the context of a guilty plea, a petitioner must
demonstrate that counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of
reasonableness, and, but for counsel's errors, he would not have pleaded
guilty. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58-59 (1985); Kirksey v. State, 112
Nev. 980, 988, 923 P.2d 1102, 1107 (1996). We conclude that no relief is
warranted on these claims. See Lader v. Warden, 121 Nev. 682, 686, 120
P.3d 1164, 1166 (2005) (explaining that we give deference to the district
court's factual findings but review the court's application of the law to
those facts de novo). Appellant does not specify what alternative defenses
counsel should have pursued or what laws counsel should have explained
to him before he pleaded guilty. Similarly, appellant does not explain how
requesting an accommodation for his intellectual disabilities during the
plea canvass would have caused him to reject the plea. Therefore,
appellant fails to demonstrate that the district court erred by denying
these claims without conducting an evidentiary hearing. See Hargrove,
100 Nev. at 502, 686 P.2d at 225.
2 For the same reasons, appellant fails to demonstrate that counsel
were ineffective for failing to address the issue of his medications in the
guilty plea agreement, plea canvass, or motion to withdraw his plea.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1907A e
Finally, appellant contends that the district court erred by (1)
denying• his claim that the sentencing scheme in existence at the time of
his sentencing was unconstitutional, and (2) "provid[ing] an incorrect
analysis of the belated appeal and successive petition issue." Appellant's
arguments regarding these claims are not clear and he suggests they are
only being raised for preservation purposes. Accordingly, we decline to
consider these claims.
Having concluded that no relief is warranted, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
J.
Gibbons
J.
Pickering
cc: Eighth Judicial District Court Dept. 20
Pitaro & Fumo, Chtd.
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A .43N:D