Preview:

504, 505 (1984) (adopting the test in Strickland). Both components of the
inquiry must be shown. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697.
First, appellant claimed counsel was ineffective for failing to question the neighbors of the residence where the crime was committed because the neighbors would have corroborated that squatters used it. Appellant failed to demonstrate deficiency or prejudice. Appellant's claim was belied by the record as counsel stated during an argument on a motion for mistrial that a defense investigator did interview the neighbors. See Hargrove v. State, 100 Nev. 498, 503, 686 P.2d 222, 225 (1984). Further, the testimony of the investigating officers corroborated appellant's claim that squatters used the residence, and accordingly he failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability of a different outcome had the neighbors testified as appellant hoped. We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in denying this claim.
Second, appellant claimed counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the district court's characterization of the victim's identification of appellant. Appellant failed to demonstrate deficiency or prejudice. When asked to identify his attacker at trial, the victim testified that he "couldn't say for sure" but identified appellant as "somebody who could fit" his description of the attacker. The district court acknowledged this identification, and the State clarified that it was with the understanding that the jurors heard what the identification was. Appellant failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability of a different outcome had counsel objected to the district court's wording. We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in denying this claim.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA

2
(0) 1947A
-
1111INIMENWOMMIRRI
Third, appellant claimed counsel was ineffective for failing to play the audio recording of his voluntary statement to police because the written transcript did not accurately reflect the interview. Appellant failed to demonstrate deficiency or prejudice. Part of what appellant claimed was missing was in fact testified to at trial by the interviewing officer, and appellant did not claim that he told counsel of any discrepancy. Further, in light of the physical evidence against him, appellant failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability of a different outcome had the jury heard the allegedly missing portions of the interview. We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in denying this claim.
Fourth, appellant claimed counsel was ineffective for failing to call K. Moore as a witness. Appellant failed to demonstrate prejudice. The State's expert recovered DNA from the area of the ligature that the attacker would have to have held and concluded that appellant was the major contributor with the victim being the minor contributor. In light of this evidence as well as other, circumstantial evidence adduced at trial, appellant failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability of a different outcome had Moore, appellant's girlfriend at the time, testified that she saw appellant buy the stolen vehicle from a third party. To the extent appellant claimed that counsel's inaction was due to a conflict of interest, his claim was unsupported by specific facts that, if true, would have demonstrated that an actual conflict existed or that counsel's performance was adversely affected. See Clark v. State, 108 Nev. 324, 326, 831 P.2d 1374, 1376 (1992); Hargrove, 100 Nev. at 502-03, 686 P.2d at 225. We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in denying this claim.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA

3
(0) 1947A.

Download 61016.pdf

Nevada Law