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). 

The record reveals that Jimenez and several coconspirators 

entered two convenience stores brandishing firearms, forced the customers 

into the back, ordered them to lie down, and restrained them using "zipties." The group robbed the stores and shot at an employee as they fled. 

Based upon these acts, Jimenez was charged with one count of conspiracy 

to commit robbery, two counts of burglary while in possession of a firearm, 

three counts of robbery with the use of a deadly weapon, one count of firstdegree kidnapping, eleven counts of first-degree kidnapping with the use 

of a deadly weapon, and one count of attempted murder with the use of a 

deadly weapon. In exchange for the State's agreement to dismiss a 

majority of the counts and deadly weapon enhancements, Jimenez agreed 

to plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit robbery, two counts of 

robbery with the use of a deadly weapon, two counts of first-degree 

kidnapping, and one count of attempted murder. The parties stipulated 

that only two of the counts would run consecutively; moreover, Jimenez 

retained the right to argue for an eight-year minimum term and the State 

retained the right to argue for a twenty-five-year maximum term. 

The district court conducted an evidentiary hearing, wherein 

Jimenez testified that counsel discussed the case with him and informed 

him of possible defenses to the kidnapping charges, but advised him to 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

2 

(0) 1947A .(Jatr 
plead guilty to reduce his exposure at sentencing. After considering the 

record and the testimony presented at the evidentiary hearing, the district 

court concluded that counsel was not ineffective. We agree. Jimenez fails 

to demonstrate that there were insufficient facts to support the 

kidnapping charges, and even assuming otherwise, he fails to demonstrate 

that it was unreasonable •for counsel to advise him to plead guilty 

pursuant to the agreement rather than proceed to trial against the 

original charges. See Hill, 474 U.S. at 58-59. We conclude that the 

district court did not err by denying this claim. 

Second, Jimenez contends that counsel was ineffective for 

failing to determine whether any witnesses were available to testify 

against him, which rendered his plea invalid. The district court denied 

Jimenez's ineffective-assistance claim on the ground that Jimenez failed to 

specify what information an investigation would have revealed, see Molina 

v. State, 120 Nev. 185, 192, 87 P.3d 533, 538 (2004); Jimenez also failed to 

demonstrate prejudice because testimony was presented at the evidentiary 

hearing that there was surveillance footage of the incidents and Jimenez 

confessed. In addition, whether the witnesses were available to testify has 

no bearing on the validity of the plea. See Rubio v. State, 124 Nev. 1032, 

1038, 194 P.3d 1224, 1228 (2008) ("A guilty plea is knowing and voluntary 

if the defendant has a full understanding of both the nature of the charges 

and the direct consequences arising from a plea of guilty." (internal 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 1947A 4213o. 
Pickering 

J. J. 

quotation marks and emphasis omitted)). We conclude that the district 

court did not err by denying these claims. 

Having considered Jimenez's contentions and concluded that 

they lack merit, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.' 

Parraguirr e Saitta 

cc: Hon. Douglas Smith, District Judge 

Mueller Hinds & Associates 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

'A footnote in Jimenez's fast track statement contains text which is 

not the same size and font as the body of the brief. See NRAP 3C(h)(1) 

(requiring fast track filings to comply with the formatting requirements of 

NRAP 32(a)(4)-(6)); NRAP 32(a)(5). We caution counsel that future failure 

to comply with the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure may result in the 

imposition of sanctions. See NRAP 3C(n). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 4 

(0) 1947A