Nev. 850, 853, 784 P.2d 951, 953 (1989). Both components of the inquiry 

must be shown. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 697 (1984). 

First, appellant claimed that his appellate counsel failed to 

federalize his claims for relief on appeal. Appellant failed to demonstrate 

that there was a reasonable probability of a different outcome had 

appellate counsel federalized his claims on appeal. Therefore, we conclude 

that the district court did not err in denying this claim. 

Second, appellant claimed that his appellate counsel failed to 

raise a claim that his guilty plea was coerced because he was not provided 

enough time to consider the plea and discovery and the amended 

indictment failed to vest jurisdiction in the court. Appellant failed to 

demonstrate that his counsel's performance was deficient or that he was 

prejudiced. Appellant cannot ordinarily challenge the validity of the 

guilty plea on direct appeal without first having litigated the claim in the 

district court or without the error being obvious from the record. See 

Smith v. State, 110 Nev. 1009, 1010 n.1, 879 P.2d 60, 61 n.1 (1994); 

Bryant v. State, 102 Nev. 268, 272, 721 P.2d 364, 368 (1986). Appellant 

did not file or pursue a presentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea in 

the district court, and the error was not obvious from the record. 

Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying this 

claim. 2 

2We note that appellate counsel argued that the indictment was 

improperly amended and that the plea was invalid because appellant felt 

pressured and was unaware of the alleged defect to the amended 

indictment. This court concluded that appellant waived challenging any 

claim to the amended indictment by entry of his plea and that under the 

totality of the circumstances appellant failed to demonstrate that his plea 

continued on next page... 

2 
Hardesty 

pp...), 

Parraguirre 

J. 

Third, appellant claimed that his appellate counsel failed to 

argue that the district court did not have jurisdiction to accept his plea 

because the amended indictment changed the category of the offenses from 

Category B trafficking to Category A trafficking. Appellant's claim is 

belied by the record as appellate counsel did argue that the indictment 

was not properly amended. Appellant failed to demonstrate that there 

was a reasonable probability of a different outcome had appellate counsel 

raised further arguments on this issue. Therefore, we conclude that the 

district court did not err in denying this claim. 

Finally, appellant claimed that the appeal-deprivation remedy 

provided for in Lozada v. State, 110 Nev. 349, 871 P.2d 944 (1994) was 

unconstitutional. This claim was outside the scope of claims permissible 

in a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the 

validity of a judgment of conviction arising from a guilty plea. NRS 

34.810(1)(a). Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

Ac, ,J. 

...continued 

was invalid. Tate v. State, Docket No. 57228 (Order of Affirmance, 

November 18, 2011). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A -41 Ar: 

3 
cc: Hon. Douglas W. Herndon, District Judge 

Lionel Tate 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

4