Monroe (Daimon) v. State ( 2015 )

 coffee table was taken as long as a year after the search was conducted.
Appellant fails to demonstrate deficiency or prejudice. Appellant's brief is
devoid of any citation to the appendices, in clear violation of NRAP
28(a)(9)(A), and we are unable to find in the appendices any reference to a
photograph of a search warrant. Appellant's claim is bare insofar as he
fails to allege what investigation counsel could have performed that would
demonstrate when the alleged photograph was taken. See Hargrove v.
State, 100 Nev. 498, 502-03, 686 P.2d 222, 225 (1984).
Moreover, appellant fails to demonstrate a reasonable
probability of a different outcome had counsel investigated. Appellant
concedes that he has been unable to prove that the alleged photograph
was taken well after the search was conducted. See Molina v. State, 120
Nev. 185, 192, 87 P.3d 533, 538 (2004). And appellant's reliance on NRS
47.250(4), which provides for a rebuttable presumption "[t]hat higher
evidence would be adverse from inferior being produced," is unavailing
where he does not allege that the State actually possessed what appellant
claims would have been the best evidence (a photograph of the police
physically handing appellant the warrant). See Langford v. State, 95 Nev.
631, 637, 600 P.2d 231, 235-36 (1979).
Appellant also takes issue with specific findings of the district
court. First, he argues that the district court erred in failing to determine
whether counsel had conducted an appropriate investigation into the
search warrant before it concluded that counsel's performance was
reasonable. Appellant's claim is belied by the record, as the district court
did not evaluate counsel's performance but rather held only that the claim
was barred by the doctrine of the law of the case. Second, appellant
argues that the district court erred in denying his claim as being barred by
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 19474 e
the doctrine of the law of the case. Appellant is correct that his claim is
not barred by the law of the case, but we nevertheless affirm the district
court's decision for the reasons stated above. See Wyatt v. State, 86 Nev.
294, 298, 468 P.2d 338, 341 (1970) (holding that a correct result will not be
reversed simply because it is based on the wrong reason). Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
j.
Saitta
72:94hafra.
, J.
Gibbons
gekuti ' J.
Pickering
cc: Eighth Judicial District Court Dept. 20
Law Office of Michael H. Schwarz
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A et,