Appellant Jeffrey Lee Johnson communicated via the Internet with several undercover law enforcement officers who he thought were 14-year-old girls. Based on the nature of the conversations, Johnson was charged under the attempt provision of NRS 201.560.2 Johnson pleaded guilty to one count of violating NRS 201.560 and failed to file a direct appeal. Johnson filed a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the district court, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. Johnson argued that his counsel was ineffective for not arguing that it was impossible for Johnson to violate the attempt provision of NRS 201.560 because no actual child was ever involved in the communications. Johnson also claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for allowing him to plead guilty with the availability of the aforementioned argument and that his counsel inadequately advised him regarding the consequences of lifetime supervision. The district court denied Johnson’s post-conviction habeas corpus petition, holding that an individual can violate the attempt provision of NRS 201.560 without the involvement of an actual child. Johnson appealed and the Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the district court’s dismissal ruling that a violation of the attempt provision of NRS 201.560 occurs when the individual intends to communicate with a child. The Nevada Supreme Court also ruled that Johnson’s counsel properly advised him regarding his guilty plea because the specific conditions of lifetime supervision are not determined at the time of sentencing.
Gayan, Michael J., "Summary of Johnson v. State, 123 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 17" (2007). Nevada Supreme Court Summaries. 495.