involves a legal error that falls outside the scope of a writ of coram nobis. 2 See Trujillo, 129 Nev., Adv. Op. 75, 310 P.3d at 602. In Trujillo, this court determined that given the sources of authority for recognizing a petition for a writ of coram nobis in Nevada, Article 6, Section 6 of the Nevada Constitution and NRS 1.030, the scope of the writ of coram nobis was limited to its common-law scope and was not as broad as the scope of the writ in federal proceedings. We decline Castillo's invitation to revisit this holding. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 3

, C.J.

Hardesty

J.

Parraguirre

cc: Hon. Valerie Adair, District Judge Anthony L. Abbatangelo Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

2 We reject Castillo's argument that his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based upon mistaken advice is distinguishable from the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based upon the failure to advise for purposes of determining the scope of a writ of coram nobis.

Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, regardless of counsel's alleged deficiency, present a legal question that is outside the scope of a writ of coram nobis. See Trujillo, 129 Nev., Adv. Op. 75, 310 P.3d at 602.

3 Wedeny Castillo's request for oral argument in this matter. See NRAP 34(f).

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

10) 1947A ZieD