Clark County and Nye County amounts to double jeopardy, and incorrect 

information was included in the presentence investigation report. These 

claims fell outside the scope of claims permissible in a post-conviction 

petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging a judgment of conviction 

based upon a guilty plea. NRS 34.810(1)(a). 

Next, appellant claimed that his counsel was ineffective 

regarding a lack of communication on direct appeal. This claim failed 

under NRS 34.810(1)(a) because it did not challenge counsel's effectiveness 

in relation to entry of the guilty plea. 

Next, appellant claimed that trial counsel was ineffective for 

promising him that he would receive a sentence of 12 to 32 months to run 

concurrently with his sentence in another case. We conclude that 

appellant failed to demonstrate that his counsel was ineffective in this 

regard as the record indicates that this was not a term of the stated plea 

negotiations and during the plea canvass appellant acknowledged that no 

promises had been made to induce his guilty plea. See Hill v. Lockhart, 

474 U.S. 52, 58-59 (1985); Kirksey v. State, 112 Nev. 980, 988, 923 P.2d 

1102, 1107 (1996). 

Next, appellant claimed that trial counsel was ineffective for 

failing to argue for 281 days of presentence credits. Appellant failed to 

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

was prejudiced because he did not demonstrate that his confinement in 

California was solely pursuant to the charges in this case. See Hill, 474 

U.S. at 58-59; Kirksey, 112 Nev. at 988, 923 P.2d at 1107; see also NRS 

176.055(1); Nieto v. State, 119 Nev. 229, 231, 70 P.3d 747, 748 (2003). 

Next, appellant claimed that trial counsel was ineffective for 

failing to file a motion to dismiss based upon a violation of the Interstate 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A 
Agreement on Detainers. Appellant failed to allege that any alleged 

deficiencies in counsel's performance would have had a reasonable 

probability of altering his decision to enter a guilty plea, and thus he failed 

to demonstrate that his counsel was ineffective. See Hill, 474 U.S. at 58- 

59; Kirksey, 112 Nev. at 988, 923 P.2d at 1107. Further, appellant failed 

to demonstrate that a motion to dismiss would have been meritorious as 

he did not demonstrate that the "proof' of his demand for his speedy trial 

rights complied with NRS 178.620 (Article III), that the demand for trial 

was actually delivered to the State of Nevada, see Fex v. Michigan, 507 

U.S. 43, 52 (1993); McNelton v. State, 115 Nev. 396, 414, 990 P.2d 1263, 

1275 (1999), or that he was even qualified to submit a demand because he 

appears to have been incarcerated in jail as a condition of supervised 

release when he submitted his demand, see State v. Wade, 105 Nev. 206, 

208-10, 772 P.2d 1291, 1293-94 (1989). Therefore, we affirm the order of 

the district court denying the petition. 3 

Docket No. 66997 

In his motion to amend the judgment of conviction, appellant 

claimed that he should have received an additional 251 days of credit for 

time served in California. Preliminarily, we note that appellant sought 

presentence credit in the wrong vehicle as a post-conviction petition for a 

writ of habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for a claim for additional 

presentence credit. See Griffin v. State, 122 Nev. 737, 744, 137 P.3d 1165, 

3To the extent that the district court determined that all of the 

claims were outside the scope of claims permissible, see NRS 34.810(1)(a), 

we conclude that this was error. We nevertheless affirm the order of the 

district court because the correct result was reached. See Wyatt v. State, 

86 Nev. 294, 298, 468 P.2d 338, 341 (1970). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(th 1947A 41.-Aps9 

3 

5EMETAM 24talaitgikg: ML:r.a.c 444 
, J. 

J. 

1169 (2006). Even assuming that appellant's use of the wrong vehicle 

could be overlooked, appellant's claim for additional presentence credits 

lacked merit for the reason set forth above. Therefore, we 

ORDER the judgments of the district court AFFIRMED. 

J. 

Pickering 

cc: Hon. Robert W. Lane, District Judge 

Reese Robert Waldron 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Nye County District Attorney 

Nye County Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 4 

(0) 1947A