Preview:

allow certain jury instructions and verdict options; the validity of his waiver of rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966); and the constitutionality of his sentence as disproportionate to his crime. The first two claims were raised on direct appeal and rejected on their merits and are therefore barred by the doctrine of the law of the case. Hall v. State, 91 Nev. 314, 316, 535 P.2d 797, 799 (1975) (stating that the holding on direct appeal is the law of the case on all subsequent appeals). The other two claims could have been raised on direct appeal and were therefore procedurally barred absent a demonstration of good cause and actual prejudice. NRS 34.810(1)(b). Appellant made no cogent argument of good cause or actual prejudice. We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in denying these claims.
Appellant next claimed that he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. To prove ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must demonstrate that 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, the outcome of the proceedings would have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984); Warden v. Lyons, 100 Nev. 430, 432-33, 683 P.2d 504, 505 (1984) (adopting the test in Strickland). Both components of the inquiry must be shown, Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697, and the petitioner must demonstrate the underlying facts by a preponderance of the evidence, Means v. State, 120 Nev. 1001, 1012, 103 P.3d 25, 33 (2004). We give deference to the district court's factual findings regarding ineffective assistance of counsel but review the court's application of the law to those facts de novo. Lader v. Warden, 121 Nev. 682, 686, 120 P.3d 1164, 1166 (2005).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA

2
(0) 1947A
First, appellant claimed that counsel was ineffective for making a flawed double-jeopardy argument, which was the result of improper investigation. Appellant failed to demonstrate deficiency or prejudice. Appellant did not state what the results of a more thorough investigation would have been. Molina v. State, 120 Nev. 185, 192, 87 P.3d 533, 538 (2004). Further, the law of the case is that appellant's convictions for both trespass and burglary arising from the same event do not violate the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and Nevada constitutions. Manning v. State, Docket No. 56797 (Order of Affirmance, September 14, 2011); Hall, 91 Nev. at 316, 535 P.2d at 799; see also Smith
v. State, 120 Nev. 944, 946, 102 P.3d 569, 571 (2004). We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in denying this claim.
Second, appellant claimed that counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate the discovery, resulting in an improper charge of burglary where he only intended to commit petit larceny. Appellant failed to demonstrate deficiency or prejudice. In his petition, appellant admitted that he did what he has done "countless times": find a discarded receipt and "reenter the retailer with the objective of 'pretending' to return whatever items appeared on that receipt for a cash refund." Appellant's admission that he entered the store with the intent to commit petit larceny and/or obtain money by false pretenses satisfied the elements for burglary. See NRS 205.060(1); Manning v. State, Docket No. 56797 (Order of Affirmance, September 14, 2011) (holding that sufficient evidence supported appellant's conviction for burglary). We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in denying this claim.
Finally, appellant claimed that he received ineffective assistance from appellate counsel, who failed to include an adequate
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA

3
(0) 1947A
WIWMENS . .g;:2 :4743101r7 ;tt_' ,7rellEIEWRI77:4f;-1P7
appendix for this court's review on direct appeal. Specifically, counsel failed to provide this court with the charging document that led to appellant's conviction in municipal court for trespass in violation of NRS 207.200, a conviction that preceded his burglary prosecution. We conclude that the district court erred in denying this claim without an evidentiary hearing.
Appellant pleaded sufficient facts that, if true, would have entitled him to relief, and thus to an evidentiary hearing on this claim. See Hargrove v. State, 100 Nev. 498, 502-03, 686 P.2d 222, 225 (1984). Counsel's failure to include the document precluded this court from reaching the merits of appellant's redundancy argument. Manning v. State, Docket No. 56797 (Order of Affirmance, September 14, 2011). Further, it appears that appellant's dual convictions for trespass and burglary may have violated Nevada's prohibition against cumulative punishments under an "alternative-offense 'redundancy" theory. Jackson
v. State, 128 Nev..

Download 60883.pdf

Nevada Law