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 

(0) 1947A 

2 
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 

(0) 1947A 

3 
J. 

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 

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 

(0) 1947A 

4