Villa (Theodore) v. State ( 2014 )

 First, Villa contends that the district court erred by denying
his claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate before
permitting him to plead guilty. Specifically, Villa contends that counsel
should have interviewed his children, who would have explained that the
victim, Villa's wife, exaggerated the extent of the incidents and suffered
from bipolar disorder. The district court denied this claim as belied by the
record because evidence was presented that counsel interviewed Villa's
eldest child and attempted to interview his younger children but was
prevented from doing so by their mother. The district court also concluded
that Villa failed to demonstrate prejudice because he failed to establish
that, but for counsel's failure to interview the younger children, he would
not have pleaded guilty and would have proceeded to trial. See Molina v.
State, 120 Nev. 185, 192, 87 P.3d 533, 538 (2004). We conclude that the
district court did not err by denying this claim.
Second, Villa contends that the district court erred by denying
his claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to file "potentially
meritorious pretrial motions." Specifically, Villa asserts that counsel
should have filed a motion requesting a psychological evaluation of the
victim.' The district court concluded that filing the motion would have
'Villa also asserts that counsel should have filed motions
"challenging the multiplicity of charges and/or the prosecutor's abuse of
discretion during the charging decision." Villa fails to explain which
charges were duplicitous or how the prosecutor abused her discretion,
therefore, we decline to consider these contentions. See Maresca v. State,
103 Nev. 669, 673, 748 P.2d 3, 7 (1987).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A me
been futile as this court has never recognized the right of a defendant to
move for a psychological examination of a domestic violence victim, and
even assuming otherwise, the motion would not have been granted under
the circumstances. See Abbott v. State, 122 Nev. 715, 724, 138 P.3d 462,
468 (2006) (explaining the factors a court must consider in determining
whether a defendant has demonstrated a compelling need for a
psychological examination of a sex-offense victim); see also Donovan v.
State, 94 Nev. 671, 675, 584 P.2d 708, 711 (1978) (counsel is not ineffective
for declining to file futile motions). "Moreover, Villa failed to demonstrate
that a psychological examination would have revealed information which
would have caused him to reject the plea. See Molina, 120 Nev. at 192, 87
P.3d at 538. We conclude that the district court did not err by denying
this claim.
Third, Villa contends that the district court erred by denying
his claim that counsel and her supervisor were ineffective for "imply[ing]
to him that he would receive a lesser sentence than he actually received."
The district court denied this claim because it found Villa's testimony that
he was led to believe he would receive a more lenient sentence to be less
credible than counsels' testimony to the contrary. The district court also
concluded that this claim was contradicted by the guilty plea agreement
and canvass, wherein Villa affirmed that he had not been promised a
particular sentence and understood that sentencing was up to the court.
Finally, the district court concluded that Villa failed to demonstrate
prejudice because he had significantly reduced his exposure at sentencing
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 947A e
by pleading guilty and failed to demonstrate he would have rather
proceeded to trial. We conclude that the district court did not err by
denying this claim.
Having considered Villa's contentions and concluded that they
lack merit, we
ORDER the judgi lent of the district court AFFIRMED.
J.
Pickering
—asi21 J.
Parraguirre
J.
cc: Hon. Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, District Judge
Terrence M. Jackson
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A