Castro (Martin) v. State ( 2015 )

 evidence and not clearly erroneous 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).
First, Castro argues that both of his trial counsel were
ineffective because they failed to adequately cross-examine the victims
regarding prior felony convictions. Castro acknowledges that information
about prior convictions came out on direct examination for two of the
victims but claims that, as the case turned on victim credibility, trial
counsel should have emphasized the prior convictions on cross-
examination. We conclude that the district court did not err in denying
this claim as the jury was informed that two of the victims had prior
convictions and, therefore, Castro failed to demonstrate deficiency or
prejudice.'
Second, Castro argues that trial counsel were ineffective
because they failed to conduct adequate pretrial investigation. Castro
claimed that trial counsel failed to conduct adequate pretrial investigation
into the credibility of the victims or their motivations to lie, and the
district court concluded that Castro failed to demonstrate what
information would have been revealed with further investigation or that
Fro the extent Castro now argues that trial counsel was ineffective
for failing to cross-examine the victims regarding acts of dishonesty, this
argument was not raised below, and we need not consider it on appeal in
the first instance. Davis v. State, 107 Nev. 600, 606, 817 P.2d 1169, 1173
(1991), overruled on other grounds by Means, 120 Nev. at 1012-13, 103
P.3d at 33.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A aipo
the information would have created a reasonable probability of a different
outcome at trial. See Molina v. State, 120 Nev. 185, 192, 87 P.3d 533, 538
(2004) (a petitioner claiming that counsel did not conduct an adequate
investigation must specify what a more thorough investigation would have
uncovered). We conclude that the district court did not err in denying this
claim. 2
Third, Castro argues that trial counsel were ineffective
because they failed to make appropriate objections at trial during the
State's redirect examination of two of the victims. The district court found
that trial counsel testified about strategic reasons for not objecting but
also determined that the questions were summarizing evidence previously
introduced and therefore that Castro failed to demonstrate a reasonable
probability of a different result at trial had the objections been made. We
conclude that the district court did not err in denying this claim.
Castro appears to change his theory of inadequate pretrial
2
investigation on appeal by claiming that counsel should have discovered
information and documents surrounding the victims' prior convictions and
arrests so as to cross-examine the victims with acts of dishonesty, see
supra note 1; however, we need not consider this altered theory on appeal,
see Ford v. Warden, 111 Nev. 872, 884, 901 P.2d 123, 130 (1995) (stating
that petitioner cannot change theory on appeal).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
101 1947A e
Lastly, Castro argues that cumulative error warrants relief.
Because we have found no error, there are no errors to cumulate.
Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
Gibbons
PIO?44 (Ay ,J
cc: Hon. Elissa F. Cadish, District Judge
Nobles & Yanez Law Firm
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A er.