demonstrate that his 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, 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). We give deference to the court's factual findings if supported by substantial evidence and not clearly erroneous but review the court's application of the law to those facts de novo. Lader u. Warden, 121 Nev. 682, 686, 120 P.3d 1164, 1166 (2005).

Appellant claims that his plea was not knowing and voluntary and that trial counsel was ineffective because counsel failed to inform him that he would be deported when he was convicted of forgery. He claims that trial counsel only informed him that he might be deported rather than that he would be deported. Appellant fails to demonstrate that his plea was not knowing and voluntary or that trial counsel was deficient or that he was prejudiced.

In Padilla v. Kentucky, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that [w]hen the law is not succinct and straight forward . . . , a criminal defense attorney need do no more than advise a noncitizen client that pending criminal charges may carry a risk of adverse immigration consequences. But when the deportation consequence is truly clear . . . , the duty to give correct advice is equally clear. 559 U.S. 356, 369 (2010). Trial counsel testified at the evidentiary hearing that it was her practice to tell every noncitizen she represents that they will be deported if they plead guilty. This advice satisfied the SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A requirements of Padilla. Further, appellant's plea agreement informed him that he will likely be deported if he was a noncitizen and appellant informed the court at his change of plea hearing that he read and understood the plea agreement. At the evidentiary hearing, appellant stated that trial counsel had discussed the immigration consequences paragraph of the plea agreement with him. Therefore, he fails to demonstrate that his plea was not knowing and voluntary because the immigration consequences were explained to him Further, appellant fails to demonstrate prejudice because he fails to demonstrate a reasonable probability that he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. Appellant received a large benefit from pleading guilty because he was originally charged with three felonies but was able to plead guilty to one and was given probation. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying the motion, and we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Pickering

Saitta

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1940A ea, cc: Hon. Valorie J. Vega, District Judge Christopher R. Oram Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A