1228-29 (2008). The district court denied Copado's motion to withdraw his guilty plea because it concluded that laches barred consideration of its merits. Even assuming, without deciding, that laches does not preclude consideration of Copado's motion on the merits, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Copado's motion because he failed to demonstrate that counsel was deficient. See Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. „ 133 S. Ct. 1103, 1105 (2013) (Padilla does not apply retroactively); see also Means v. State, 120 Nev. 1001, 1012, 103 P.3d 25, 33 (2004) (the petitioner must demonstrate the underlying facts by a preponderance of the evidence); Wyatt v. State, 86 Nev. 294, 298, 468 P.2d 338, 341 (1970) (we will affirm the district court if it reaches the right result). Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

J.

Hardesty

Parraguirre

J.

cc: Hon. Connie J. Steinheimer, District Judge Ian E. Silverberg Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk