First, appellant claimed that trial counsel was ineffective for 

failing to adequately communicate with him and investigate appellant's 

allegations that he did not consent to the search of his car and that the 

police planted marijuana and a stolen firearm in his car. Appellant failed 

to demonstrate prejudice, as he did not explain how further 

communication or investigation would have helped with his defense or 

changed the outcome of the trial. See Molina v. State, 120 Nev. 185, 192, 

87 P.3d 533, 538 (2004); Hargrove v. State, 100 Nev. 498, 502-03, 686 P.2d 

222, 225 (1984). Thus, the district court did not err in denying this claim. 

Second, appellant claimed that trial counsel was ineffective for 

failing to adequately litigate a motion to suppress the firearm and 

marijuana that were seized from his car. Specifically, appellant contended 

that counsel should not have conceded that the search of his car was 

consensual and should have argued that the evidence was planted by the 

police. Appellant failed to demonstrate that counsel's performance was 

deficient or that he was prejudiced, as he failed to demonstrate that a 

motion to suppress would have been successful. See Kirksey v. State, 112 

Nev. 980, 990, 923 P.2d 1102, 1109 (1996); see also Donovan v. State, 94 

Nev. 671, 675, 584 P.2d 708, 711 (1978) (holding that counsel cannot be 

ineffective for failing to file a futile motion). Two police officers testified 

that appellant consented to a search of his car during a routine traffic stop 

and that they found marijuana and a firearm in the car. In light of this 

testimony, appellant failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability that 

the evidence would have been suppressed had counsel argued that the 

search was non-consensual and that the evidence was planted by the 

police. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying this claim. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2 
Third, appellant claimed that counsel was ineffective for 

failing to object at trial to the admission of the evidence seized from 

appellant's car. Appellant failed to demonstrate that counsel's 

performance was deficient or that he was prejudiced, as the district court 

made a pretrial ruling that the evidence was admissible at trial. Counsel 

cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to make a futile objection or 

motion. See Donovan, 94 Nev. at 675, 584 P.2d at 711. Thus, the district 

court did not err in denying this claim. 

Fourth, appellant claimed that trial counsel was ineffective for 

failing to present appellant's theory of defense—non-consensual search 

and planted evidence—at trial. Appellant failed to demonstrate that 

counsel's performance was deficient or that he was prejudiced. At trial, 

counsel challenged the police officers' testimony about the traffic stop and 

search and seizure and argued that the officers were not telling the truth 

and that appellant did not consent to the search. Thus, appellant's claim 

is repelled by the record, see Hargrove, 100 Nev. at 503, 686 F'.2d at 225, 

and the district court did not err in denying this claim. 

Fifth, appellant claimed that counsel was ineffective for failing 

to object to the admission of appellant's statements to the police as 

impermissible hearsay testimony. Appellant failed to demonstrate that 

his counsel's performance was deficient or that he was prejudiced, as his 

statements were not hearsay. See NRS 51.035(3)(a). Therefore, the 

district court did not err in denying this claim. 

Finally, appellant claimed that counsel had an actual conflict 

of interest. Appellant's claim of a conflict of interest was based entirely on 

his above allegations of ineffective assistance and, thus, he failed to 

demonstrate an actual conflict of interest. See Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

3 
335, 348, (1980); Clark v. State, 108 Nev. 324, 326, 831 P.2d 1374, 1376 

(1992). Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying this claim. 

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the district court 

did not err in denying the petition, and we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

J. 

Hardesty 

cc: Hon. Jennifer P. Togliatti, District Judge 

Herman Lee Reed 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

4