demonstrate that his counsel's performance was deficient in that it fell 

below an objective standard of reasonableness, and resulting prejudice 

such that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, 

petitioner would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going 

to trial. Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58-59 (1985); Kirksey v. State, 112 

Nev. 980, 988, 923 P.2d 1102, 1107 (1996). Both components of the 

inquiry must be shown. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 697 

(1984). We give deference to the court's factual findings if supported by 

substantial evidence and not clearly erroneous but review the court's 

application of the law to those facts de novo. Lader u. Warden, 121 Nev. 

682, 686, 120 P.3d 1164, 1166 (2005). 

Appellant claims that his plea was not knowing and voluntary 

and that trial counsel was ineffective because counsel failed to inform him 

that he would be deported when he was convicted of forgery. He claims 

that trial counsel only informed him that he might be deported rather 

than that he would be deported. Appellant fails to demonstrate that his 

plea was not knowing and voluntary or that trial counsel was deficient or 

that he was prejudiced. 

In Padilla v. Kentucky, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded 

that 

[w]hen the law is not succinct and straight 

forward . . . , a criminal defense attorney need do 

no more than advise a noncitizen client that 

pending criminal charges may carry a risk of 

adverse immigration consequences. But when the 

deportation consequence is truly clear . . . , the 

duty to give correct advice is equally clear. 

559 U.S. 356, 369 (2010). Trial counsel testified at the evidentiary hearing 

that it was her practice to tell every noncitizen she represents that they 

will be deported if they plead guilty. This advice satisfied the 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A 
requirements of Padilla. Further, appellant's plea agreement informed 

him that he will likely be deported if he was a noncitizen and appellant 

informed the court at his change of plea hearing that he read and 

understood the plea agreement. At the evidentiary hearing, appellant 

stated that trial counsel had discussed the immigration consequences 

paragraph of the plea agreement with him. Therefore, he fails to 

demonstrate that his plea was not knowing and voluntary because the 

immigration consequences were explained to him 

Further, appellant fails to demonstrate prejudice because he 

fails to demonstrate a reasonable probability that he would not have 

pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. Appellant 

received a large benefit from pleading guilty because he was originally 

charged with three felonies but was able to plead guilty to one and was 

given probation. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying the 

motion, and we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

Pickering 

Saitta 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 1940A ea, 
cc: Hon. Valorie J. Vega, District Judge 

Christopher R. Oram 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 4 

(0) 1947A