probability that, but for counsel's errors, petitioner would not have

pleaded guilty and would have insisted 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).

First, appellant claimed that counsel was ineffective for failing

to bring appellant's file to a hearing on appellant's motion to withdraw his

plea. Appellant failed to demonstrate prejudice, as he did not show that

counsel's performance subsequent to the entry of the guilty plea affected

appellant's decision to plead guilty. Thus, the district court did not err in

denying this claim.

Second, appellant claimed that counsel was ineffective for

failing to research and understand an intoxication defense. Appellant

failed to allege any specific facts to support this claim and thus failed to

demonstrate deficiency or prejudice. See Hargrove v. State, 100 Nev. 498, 502, 686 P.2d 222, 225 (1984) (holding that no relief is warranted where

petitioner raises "bare' or 'naked' claims for relief, unsupported by any

specific factual allegations that would, if true, have entitled him to

withdrawal of his plea"). Therefore, the district court did not err in

denying this claim.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A < For the reasons set forth above, we conclude that the district

court did not err in denying the petition. 2 Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 3

Hardesty

at..A.A J. Parraguirre

J. Cherry LI 2 The district court also denied the petition on the grounds that it failed to comply with the requirements of NRS 34.730 and NRS 34.735. On appeal, appellant has attempted to amend the defects in his petition. Because we conclude that the district court did not err in denying the petition on the merits, we need not address whether the petition contained pleading defects.

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 cc: Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge Theodore A. Pearil, III Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 4 (0) 1947A