Nuno-Velasco (Juan) v. State ( 2013 )

 application of the law to those facts de novo. Lader v. Warden, 121 Nev.
682, 686, 120 P.3d 1164, 1166 (2005).
First, appellant argues that trial counsel was ineffective for
failing to conduct a pretrial investigation into the murder or potential
mitigating circumstances until four years after appellant's arrest.
Appellant contends that an independent and timely investigation would
have shown that he was innocent, that Alvaro "Sleepy" Romero had
admitted to the killing, that Roseanna Saldana had material evidence to
exonerate him, that he had been coerced into pleading guilty, and that the
State lacked jurisdiction to prosecute him for murder. Appellant failed to
demonstrate deficiency or prejudice. His assertions as to what an
investigation would have uncovered are speculative and conclusory with
no factual support. See Hargrove v. State, 100 Nev. 498, 502-03, 686 P.2d
222, 225 (1984). Furthermore, on direct appeal, this court rejected his
claims of innocence, coercion, and exculpatory evidence. Nuno-Velasco v.
State, Docket No. 49574 (Order of Affirmance, May 16, 2008). This court
specifically noted that Roseanna Saldana admitted to defense counsel that
she was not a percipient witness to the shooting and defense counsel
determined that another possible witness was not credible in claiming
that Alvaro Romero admitted to the killing. See id. Therefore, appellant
failed to demonstrate that counsel conducted an inadequate pretrial
investigation. As to his assertion that the district court lacked
jurisdiction, he fails to make any cogent argument on this point. See
Maresca v. State, 103 Nev. 669, 673, 748 P.2d 3, 6 (1987). Thus, the
district court did not err in denying this claim.
Second, appellant argues that trial counsel was ineffective for
failing to sever his case from that of his cousin's. Appellant contends that
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
he agreed to plead guilty only because his cousin's mother convinced him
that his cousin would be sentenced to death if appellant went to trial.
Appellant failed to demonstrate deficiency or prejudice. We note that the
record indicates that the district court ordered the trials to be severed
prior to the entry of appellant's guilty plea. In any event, appellant failed
to demonstrate a reasonable probability that, had the cases been severed,
he would not have pleaded guilty and would have proceeded to trial.
Thus, the district court did not err in denying this claim.
Third, appellant argues that trial counsel was ineffective for
failing to advise appellant of his rights under Article 36 of the Vienna
Convention and for failing to notify the Mexican consulate about
appellant's prosecution. Appellant contends that because he was a
Mexican national, the Mexican consulate would have conducted its own
investigation into the charges, filed legal briefs on appellant's behalf, and
provided appellant with an explanation of Nevada's legal system and how
it differed from Mexico's system. Even assuming that appellant was not
advised by the arresting agency or by counsel of his right to contact the
Mexican consulate, appellant failed to demonstrate prejudice. Appellant
was provided with counsel, investigative services, and an interpreter to
assist him during the criminal proceedings, and he provided no evidence
as to what further actions the Mexican consulate would have taken. This
court has rejected the proposition that a violation of the Vienna
Convention requires automatic reversal of a conviction. Garcia v. State,
117 Nev. 124, 129, 17 P.3d 994, 997 (2001). Thus, he failed to demonstrate
a reasonable probability that, if the consulate had been notified, appellant
would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.
Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying this claim.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the district court
did not err in denying the petition. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
Hardesty
GOO
Parraguirre
J.
Cherry
cc: Hon. Jerome Polaha, District Judge
Story Law Group
Attorney General/Carson City
Washoe County District Attorney
Washoe District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A