Grant (Kenneth) v. State ( 2015 )

 with specific factual allegations that if true would entitle him to relief."
Thomas v. State, 120 Nev. 37, 44, 83 P.3d 818, 823 (2004).
First, Grant contends that the district court erred by denying
his claims that counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and
present testimony from a toxicologist. We disagree. Taken as true, such
testimony would only have supported Grant's claim that he and his
girlfriend were drug users and the victim came up to their hotel room to
use drugs, not for sexual activity. Because Grant fails to demonstrate that
such testimony would have led to a different result at trial,' we conclude
that the district court did not err by denying this claim without conducting
an evidentiary hearing.
Second, Grant contends that the district court erred by
denying his claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and
present testimony from a pathologist. However, the record reflects that
counsel sought the services of a pathologist, and while Grant has not
provided complete trial transcripts, we must infer from the record that has
been provided that counsel made a strategic decision not to have the
pathologist testify. See Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011)
("Strickland specifically commands that a court must indulge the strong
presumption that counsel made all significant decisions in the exercise of
reasonable professional judgment." (internal quotation marks and
alterations omitted)); State v. Powell, 122 Nev. 751, 759, 138 P.3d 453, 458
(2006) ("Judicial review of an attorney's representation is highly
deferential, and a claimant must overcome the presumption that a
'Grant was acquitted of conspiracy to commit robbery.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1941A
challenged action might be considered sound strategy."). Moreover, given
the state of the evidence, Grant fails to demonstrate that the result of the
of the proceedings would have been different had a pathologist testified.
Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not err by denying this
claim without conducting an evidentiary hearing.
Third, Grant contends that the district court erred by denying
his claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present
testimony from an ex-prostitute. While Grant mentions the topics that an
ex-prostitute could have discussed, he fails to describe with specificity
what she would have said and how such testimony would have changed
the result at trial. Therefore, Grant fails to demonstrate that the district
court erred by denying this claim without conducting an evidentiary
hearing. See Hargrove v. State, 100 Nev. 498, 502, 686 P.2d 222, 225
(1984).
Fourth, Grant contends that the district court erred by
denying his claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and
present evidence of his girlfriend's prior violent actions and statements.
Grant fails to demonstrate that this evidence would have been admissible
at trial. Moreover, he fails to demonstrate that the result of trial would
have been different had counsel presented this evidence. Therefore, we
conclude that the district court did not err by denying this claim without
conducting an evidentiary hearing.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A 4E40
Having considered Grant's contentions and concluded that
they lack merit, 2 we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
Gibbons
:P
Pickering
cc: Hon. Jessie Elizabeth Walsh, District Judge
Law Office of Patricia M. Erickson
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
also asserts that cumulative error warrants relief. Because
2 Grant
we have found no error, there are no errors to cumulate.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A stirgy,