Ignacio (Johnny) v. State ( 2014 )

 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).
Appellant claimed that his trial counsel was ineffective for
failing to discover and challenge the fact that the Nevada Revised Statutes
were derived from an illegal and unlawful body, that the Nevada Revised
Statutes do not contain an enacting clause, that there is no proof that a
bill was voted upon and signed in order to enact the Nevada Revised
Statutes as laws, that the Nevada Revised Statutes are held out as laws of
the state based upon fraudulent acts of prior justices and unknown
legislators, and that the Office of the Secretary of State no longer has
custody or control of the legislative history for the period during which the
Nevada Revised Statutes were enacted. Appellant failed to demonstrate
that counsel was objectively unreasonable for not challenging the
abovementioned grounds. 2 Furthermore, appellant failed to demonstrate
a reasonable probability that he would not have pleaded guilty but would
have insisted on going to trial had counsel challenged the charges on the
abovementioned grounds. Therefore, the district court did not err in
2We note that the Statutes of Nevada contain the law with the
enacting clauses required by the constitution. The Nevada Revised
Statutes simply reproduce those laws as classified, codified, and annotated
by the Legislative Counsel, NRS 220.120.
SUPREME COUFtT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A -
denying this claim without conducting an evidentiary hearing.
Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 3
J.
J.
J.
cc: Hon. Douglas W. Herndon, District Judge
Johnny Ray Ignacio
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
3 We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in
proper person to the clerk of this court in this matter, and we conclude
that no relief based upon those submissions is warranted. To the extent
that appellant has attempted to present claims or facts in those
submissions which were not previously presented in the proceedings
below, we have declined to consider them in the first instance.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A e