Rico-Rios (Salvador) v. Warden

Opinion

from Rico-Rios and his former defense counsel. The district court concluded that Rico-Rios was not improperly denied his right to a direct appeal, see Thomas v. State, 115 Nev. 148, 150, 979 P.2d 222, 223 (1999); Lozada v. State, 110 Nev. 349, 354-55, 871 P.2d 944, 947 (1994), and that "he fail[ed] to articulate, let alone establish," that he was prejudiced by counsel's failure to contact the Mexican consulate, see generally Garcia v. State, 117 Nev. 124, 128-29, 17 P.3d 994, 996-97 (2001). The district court's findings are supported by substantial evidence and not clearly wrong, and Rico-Rios has not demonstrated that the district court erred as a matter of law. See Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985); see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-8.8, 694 (1984); Kirksey v. State, 112 Nev. 980, 987, 923 P.2d 1102, 1107 (1996). Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not err by rejecting Rico-Rios' ineffective-assistance claims, and we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

J. Gibbons

Lici I AJ' , J. Douglas

J. Saitta

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A cc: Hon. Lidia Stiglich, District Judge Story Law Group Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A