demonstrate that counsel's performance was deficient in that it fell below

an objective standard of reasonableness, and resulting prejudice such that

there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, the outcome

of the proceedings would have been different. Strickland v. Washington,

466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984); Warden v. Lyons, 100 Nev. 430, 432-33, 683 P.2d 504, 505 (1984) (adopting the test in Strickland). Both components of

the inquiry must be shown, Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697, and the petitioner

must demonstrate the underlying facts by a preponderance of the

evidence, Means v. State, 120 Nev. 1001, 1012, 103 P.3d 25, 33 (2004).

Appellant failed to demonstrate that his trial counsel's

performance was deficient or that he was prejudiced. Counsel informed

the district court that there was an error relating to a previous conviction

and informed the court that the PSI could only be amended with a court

order. The district court acknowledged that the PSI contained an error,

ordered it to be corrected, and proceeded to sentence appellant to the

sentence stipulated to in the guilty plea agreement. Appellant failed to

demonstrate a reasonable probability of a different outcome had counsel

performed further actions relating to the correction of the PSI. Therefore,

the district court did not err in denying this claim.

Next, appellant claimed that the district court judge was

biased and his sentence was excessive. These claims were not permissible

in a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus that challenges a SUPREME COURT

OF

NEVADA

2 (0) 1947A

EMI ar:em

judgment based upon a guilty plea. See NRS 34.810(1)(a). Therefore, the

district court did not err in denying these claims. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2

Gibbons

Saitta

cc: Hon. Douglas W. Herndon, District Judge

Lonnie Jay Loucks

Attorney General/Carson City

Clark County District Attorney

Eighth District Court Clerk

2 Appellant failed to demonstrate that the district court erred in

denying his motion for the appointment of counsel or his motion to amend,

which requested that the district court appoint counsel to file an amended

petition. See NRS 34.750. Further, the district court did not deny

appellant's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and therefore, appellant

was not an aggrieved party who may seek appellate relief regarding that

motion. See NRS 177.015. SUPREME COURT

OF

NEVADA

3 (0) 1947A