Rico-Rios (Salvador) v. Warden

 from Rico-Rios and his former defense counsel. The district court
concluded that Rico-Rios was not improperly denied his right to a direct
appeal, see Thomas v. State, 115 Nev. 148, 150, 979 P.2d 222, 223 (1999);
Lozada v. State, 110 Nev. 349, 354-55, 871 P.2d 944, 947 (1994), and that
"he fail[ed] to articulate, let alone establish," that he was prejudiced by
counsel's failure to contact the Mexican consulate, see generally Garcia v.
State, 117 Nev. 124, 128-29, 17 P.3d 994, 996-97 (2001). The district
court's findings are supported by substantial evidence and not clearly
wrong, and Rico-Rios has not demonstrated that the district court erred as
a matter of law. See Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 (1985); see also
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-8.8, 694 (1984); Kirksey v.
State, 112 Nev. 980, 987, 923 P.2d 1102, 1107 (1996). Therefore, we
conclude that the district court did not err by rejecting Rico-Rios'
ineffective-assistance claims, and we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
J.
Gibbons
Lici I AJ' , J.
Douglas
J.
Saitta
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
cc: Hon. Lidia Stiglich, District Judge
Story Law Group
Attorney General/Carson City
Washoe County District Attorney
Washoe District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A