(stating that prejudice in appellate counsel context requires showing 

omitted issue would have had reasonable probability of success on appeal); 

Warden v. Lyons, 100 Nev. 430, 432-33, 683 P.2d 504, 505 (1984) (adopting 

the test in Strickland). Both deficiency and prejudice must be shown, 

Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697, and the petitioner must demonstrate the 

underlying facts by a preponderance of the evidence, Means v. State, 120 

Nev. 1001, 1012, 103 P.3d 25, 33 (2004). Here, the district court held an 

evidentiary hearing, and we give deference to the district court's factual 

findings if they are supported by substantial 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, Collins contends that counsel was ineffective for failing 

to challenge in a pretrial motion or on appeal that no evidence 

corroborated the accomplice testimony admitted at trial and therefore his 

convictions cannot stand. Sheriff Kerry Lee testified that in April 2007, 

his office conducted an investigation into narcotic trafficking and sales 

involving Collins and Kevin Valerio. The investigation culminated in the 

issuance of a warrant to search Valerio's home for methamphetaminerelated items, specifically a large metal toolbox and keys to unlock the 

padlock Sheriff Lee was told secured the toolbox. The search of Valerio's 

house yielded a large metal toolbox, which contained methamphetamine 

and drug paraphernalia. A key that unlocked the padlock on the toolbox 

was found during a search of Collins' house. Other than the key, the bulk 

of the evidence against Collins rested with the testimony of Valerio and 

Kenneth Bowen. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2 
The evidence necessary to corroborate accomplice testimony 

need not, by itself, be sufficient to establish guilt. Ramirez-Garza v. State, 

108 Nev. 376, 379, 832 P.2d 392, 393 (1992). "If the evidence, independent 

of the accomplice testimony, tends to connect the accused with the 

commission of the offense, then the corroboration requirement contained 

in NRS 175.291 is satisfied." Id.; Heglemeier v. State, 111 Nev. 1244, 

1251-52, 903 P.2d 799, 803-04 (1995); see also Austin v. State, 87 Nev. 578, 

585, 491 P.2d 724, 728 (1971) (observing that in determining if sufficient 

evidence corroborates accomplice's testimony, that testimony must be 

eliminated and remaining evidence examined to ascertain if there is 

inculpatory evidence tending to connect defendant to offense). The district 

court concluded that the State produced sufficient independent 

corroborative evidence by showing that Collins possessed the only key 

located that could open the padlock securing the toolbox, which contained 

approximately 21 grams of methamphetamine and his incriminating 

statement to law enforcement that if any drugs were found in Valerio's 

house, they did not belong to him. Considering Collins' arguments, the 

trial testimony, and the district court's factual findings, we conclude that 

the district court did not err by denying this claim. 2 

2Collins' conviction for child neglect and endangerment was not 

predicated on accomplice testimony, as Valerio and Bowen were not 

accomplices in that offense. Therefore, the district court did not err by 

denying his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel related to that 

charge. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

3 
Second, Collins argues that counsel was ineffective for not 

challenging the voluntariness of his consent to a search of his house. The 

district court concluded that the search was conducted pursuant to a 

condition of Collins' probation and was consensual, see Seim v. State, 95 

Nev. 89, 94, 590 P.2d 1152, 1155 (1979), and thus counsel was not 

ineffective for failing to challenge the search at trial or on appeal. The 

district court's finding is supported by substantial evidence, and we 

conclude that it did not error by denying this claim. 

Third, Collins argues that counsel was ineffective for not 

challenging inadmissible prior bad act evidence. In responding to a direct 

examination question regarding the length of the investigation of Collins' 

crimes, Sheriff Lee responded that his office had "been watching Mr. 

Collins for a number of years, and particularly in the last months we were 

watching—." At the evidentiary hearing, counsel acknowledged that the 

comment could imply prior misconduct, but he elected not to object to it to 

avoid attracting the jury's attention to it. The district court found that 

counsel made a strategic decision by not objecting and therefore Collins 

failed to prove ineffective assistance, see Doleman v. State, 112 Nev. 843, 

848, 921 P.2d 278, 280-81 (1996) (observing that counsel's strategic or 

tactical decisions will be "virtually unchallengeable absent extraordinary 

circumstances" (quoting Howard v. State, 106 Nev. 713, 722, 800 P.2d 

175, 180 (1990))), abrogation on other grounds recognized in Harte v. State, 

116 Nev. 1054, 1072 n.6, 13 P.3d 420, 432 n.6 (2000)), or, even assuming 

counsel should have objected, he failed to show prejudice. The district 

court further determined that counsel was not ineffective for not raising 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

4 

AMiti1/4(MV19( UMW Fd 13111 itiaNIEVIEliffiligifi 
this claim on appeal. We conclude that the district court did not err in 

this regard. 

Fourth, Collins argues that counsel was ineffective for not 

challenging comments by the prosecutor that disparaged counsel and 

expressed the prosecutor's personal opinion as to his guilt. In particular, 

during closing and rebuttal argument, the prosecutor compared counsel to 

an illusionist and argued that counsel was disingenuous by "talk[ing] 

about all the things [the prosecution doesn't] have." The district court 

determined that while the comments were improper, see Rose v. State, 123 

Nev. 194, 211, 163 P.3d 408, 419 (2007) (concluding that "referring to the 

defense as 'smoke screens' is improper"); Emerson v. State, 98 Nev. 158, 

164, 643 P.2d 1212, 1215 (1982) ("A prosecutor does not appropriately offer 

his personal opinion as to the guilt or the character of the accused."), and 

counsel should have objected, Collins failed to demonstrate prejudice at 

trial and on appeal. We conclude that the district court did not err in this 

regard. 

Fifth, Collins argues that counsel was ineffective for failing to 

file a number of pretrial motions, conduct reliable pretrial investigation, 

and present a defense. These claims appear in Collins' proper person postconviction motion and are little more than bare and vague allegations of 

ineffective assistance of counsel. Therefore, we conclude that the district 

court did not err by denying them. 

Sixth, Collins contends that cumulative error requires reversal 

of his convictions. To the extent Collins argues that cumulative trial error 

warrants relief, his claim is procedurally barred as it should have been 

raised on appeal. NRS 34.810(1)(b)(2). To the extent he argues that the 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

5 
,J. 

cumulative effect of counsel's deficiencies warrants relief, he demonstrated 

deficient performance in one instance, and consequently there are no 

deficiencies to cumulate. Therefore we conclude that the district court did 

not err by denying this claim. 

Having considered Collins' claims and concluded that no relief 

is warranted, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 3 

cc: Hon. Gary Fairman, District Judge 

Christopher R. Oram 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Lincoln County District Attorney 

Lincoln County Clerk 

3Collins argues that counsel was ineffective for not filing a petition 

for rehearing of this court's order denying his direct appeal because this 

court overlooked a jury instruction claim. In pleadings filed below, Collins 

conceded that this court did not overlook the matter. Therefore, we 

conclude that the district court did not err by denying this claim. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

6 

kININVMEM aiZ2R:itiMMASEEMBE Mirk7261MiiiRMM