Howard (Nicholas) v. State ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                  counsel testified at the evidentiary hearing that Howard wanted this
    defense to be presented.   See Ybarra v. State, 127 Nev., Adv. Op. 4, 
    247 P.3d 269
    , 276 (2011) (giving deference to the district court's credibility
    determinations). The district court also noted that Howard was caught on
    video entering the room and exiting with the property and therefore had
    limited defenses available. Therefore, Howard fails to demonstrate that
    the district court erred by denying this claim.
    Second, Howard contends that the district court erred by
    denying his claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue
    that he did not have the requisite intent for burglary. The district court
    denied this claim because counsel argued that Howard was not guilty of
    burglary on a theory which incorporated this argument and his strategic
    decision on which defense to present was entitled to deference.          See
    Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689; Lara v. State, 
    120 Nev. 177
    , 180, 
    87 P.3d 528
    ,
    530 (2004) (explaining that "trial counsel's strategic or tactical decisions
    will be virtually unchallengeable absent extraordinary circumstances"
    (internal quotation marks omitted)). The district court also noted that the
    jury was properly instructed on the elements of burglary and the result of
    trial would not have been different had counsel made this argument more
    explicitly. Therefore, Howard fails to demonstrate that the district court
    erred by denying this claim.'
    'We decline to consider Howard's contention that the district court
    erred by denying his claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to
    request an instruction regarding trespass because it is not supported by
    sufficient argument. See Maresca v. State, 
    103 Nev. 669
    , 673, 
    748 P.2d 3
    ,
    6 (1987).
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    2
    (0) 1947A    e
    Third, Howard contends that the district court erred by
    denying his claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to review
    unedited surveillance footage. The district court denied this claim because
    counsel testified that he reviewed the footage and concluded it was not
    helpful. Howard has not provided the unedited footage on appeal and does
    not explain how it would have helped his case or led to a different result at
    trial. Therefore, he fails to demonstrate that the district court erred by
    denying this claim.
    Fourth, Howard contends that the district court erred by
    denying his claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and
    call certain witnesses to support his theory of defense. Howard does not
    explain what information the witnesses would have provided or how their
    testimony would have changed the result at trial. Therefore, he fails to
    demonstrate that the district court erred by denying this claim.
    Fifth, Howard contends that the district court erred by
    denying his claim that trial counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to obtain
    and review the recorded statement of Shameka McDonald, (2) waiving
    objection to the State's failure to produce McDonald's statement, and (3)
    failing to request a "Sanborn" instruction. Howard does not explain how
    he was prejudiced by the failure to obtain the statement, particularly
    given that counsel spoke with McDonald personally and concluded that
    the information she possessed was more harmful than helpful. In
    addition, Howard has not identified the instruction counsel should have
    requested, let alone pointed to any law establishing that he was entitled to
    such an instruction. Therefore, he fails to demonstrate that the district
    court erred by denying this claim.
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    (0) I 947A
    3
    Having considered Howard's contentions and concluded they
    lack merit, we
    ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2
    ‘,12e.A.S       , C.J.
    Hardesty
    J.
    424jter
    Parraguirre
    Lics21             J.
    Douglas
    cc: Hon. Susan Johnson, District Judge
    Bush Law Group, LLc
    Attorney General/Carson City
    Clark County District Attorney
    Eighth District Court Clerk
    2 Howard also contends that cumulative error warrants relief.
    Because we have found no error, there are no errors to cumulate.
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    4
    0) 1947A    e
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 67169

Filed Date: 11/13/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021