Cervantes (Julio) v. State ( 2014 )

 discretion." Johnson v. State, 123 Nev. 139, 144, 159 P.3d 1096, 1098
(2007). The district court conducted an evidentiary hearing, wherein prior
counsel for Cervantes testified. After considering the transcripts of the
plea canvass and sentencing, the guilty plea agreement, and the testimony
provided at the evidentiary hearing, the district court concluded that
Cervantes's plea was knowingly, freely, and voluntarily given. The record
supports the district court's determinations, see Molina v. State, 120 Nev.
185, 191, 87 P.3d 533, 537-38 (2004), and Cervantes fails to demonstrate
that the district court misapplied the standard for determining the
voluntariness of his plea or abused its discretion.
Third, Cervantes contends that the district court erred by
denying his post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus because
the district court misapprehended the duties of appointed counsel when it
concluded that counsel was appointed only for the limited purpose of
reviewing the merits of the post-conviction motion to withdraw the guilty
plea. Cervantes claims that counsel was ineffective because counsel had a
duty to advocate and pursue the post-conviction motion and because
counsel informed the district court that the motion had no legal basis. The
district court concluded that counsel was effective.
Cervantes fails to demonstrate that he was entitled to counsel
or the effective assistance of counsel for his post-conviction motion. See
MeKague v. Warden, 112 Nev. 159, 163, 912 P.2d 255, 257 (1996) ("[T]here
is no right to effective assistance of counsel, or counsel at all, in post-
conviction proceedings."); see also Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 752
(1991), as modified by Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. „ 132 S. Ct. 1309,
1315 (2012). "Where there is no right to counsel there can be no
deprivation of effective assistance of counsel." McKague, 112 Nev. at 164-
SUPREME COURT
DP
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A e
65, 912 P.2d at 258. Therefore, the district court did not err by denying
this claim. See Wyatt v. State, 86 Nev. 294, 298, 468 P.2d 338, 341 (1970)
(this court will affirm a decision of the district court if it reaches the right
result, even if for the wrong reason).
Having considered Cervantes's claims and concluded that no
relief is warranted, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
, J.
Pickering
J.
Saitta
cc: Hon. Douglas Smith, District Judge
Law Office of Julian Gregory, L.L.C.
Matthew D. Carling
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) I947A