Opinion
No. 58978.
05-09-2012
Mark R. ZANA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent.
Mark R. Zana Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney
Mark R. Zana
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is a proper person appeal from an order of the district court denying a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus . Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Michael Villani, Judge.
This appeal has been submitted for decision without oral argument, NRAP 34(f)(3), and we conclude that the record is sufficient for our review and briefing is unwarranted. See
In his petition, filed on December 14, 2009, appellant claimed that he was denied due process and the effective assistance of counsel. This court reversed and remanded the district court's initial order denying the petition, concluding that appellant should have been appointed postconviction counsel. Zana v. State, Docket No. 55688 (Order of Reversal and Remand, September 29, 2010). After a canvass pursuant to Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), appellant waived the appointment of postconviction counsel at a January 11, 2011, hearing and filed a supplemental petition in accordance with the briefing schedule that the district court set at that hearing. Appellant raised no new claims in the supplement, requesting only the ability to supplement his petition as claims arose. Appellant filed no other documents in the district court.
Appellant failed to support his due-process and ineffective-assistance claims with specific facts that, if true, would have entitled him to relief. See Hargrove v. State, 100 Nev. 498, 502–03, 686 P.2d 222, 225 (1984) (holding that “bare” or “naked” claims are insufficient to grant relief). We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in denying the petition. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
Luckett v. Warden, 91 Nev. 681, 682, 541 P.2d 910, 911 (1975).