2 

-47 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

27.t07-af-: 

assistance of counsel, a petitioner must demonstrate that counsel's 

performance was deficient in that it fell below an objective standard of 

reasonableness, and resulting prejudice such that there is a reasonable 

probability that, but for counsel's errors, the outcome of the proceedings 

would have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687- 

88 (1984); Warden v. Lyons, 100 Nev. 430, 432-33, 683 P.2d 504, 505 

(1984) (adopting the test in Strickland). Both components of the inquiry 

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). We give 

deference to the district court's factual findings regarding ineffective 

assistance of counsel 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, appellant claims counsel was ineffective for failing to 

adequately voir dire prospective jurors or review their questionnaires. 

Appellant fails to demonstrate deficiency or prejudice. The district court 

found that counsel reviewed the questionnaires and had tactical reasons 

for not questioning each juror individually or belaboring points already 

covered by the district court's questioning. The district court's findings 

are supported by substantial evidence. Further, appellant failed to 

present any evidence to support his claim that had counsel engaged in 

further review or questioning, the outcome at trial would have been 

different. We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in 

denying this claim. 

Second, appellant claims counsel was ineffective for failing to 

take steps after the preliminary hearing to have the case addressed as a 
civil rather than a criminal matter. Appellant fails to demonstrate 

deficiency or prejudice. Regardless of whether appellant's actions could 

also have been the basis for a civil action, the district attorney had 

discretion whether to seek to try the case as a civil matter, see 

Salaiscooper v. Dist. Court, 117 Nev. 892, 902-03, 34 P.3d 509, 516 (2001), 

and appellant concedes that the lower court determined there was 

probable cause to bind appellant over for trial. Further, although 

appellant suggests that counsel could have persuaded the district attorney 

to drop the criminal charges or filed a pretrial petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus in this court challenging the probable-cause finding, appellant 

failed to specify what arguments such pleas and pleadings would have 

contained or that either would have been successful, especially in light of 

the jury having found him guilty. Cf. Kirksey v. State, 112 Nev. 980, 990, 

923 P.2d 1102, 1109 (1996) (holding that petitioner did not demonstrate 

prejudice where he failed to demonstrate that a motion to suppress 

evidence would have succeeded); see also Maresca v. State, 103 Nev. 669, 

673, 748 P.2d 3, 6 (1987) ("It is appellant's responsibility to present 

relevant authority and cogent argument; issues not so presented need not 

be addressed by this court."). We therefore conclude that the district court 

did not err in denying this claim. 

Third, appellant claims counsel was ineffective for failing to 

present to the jury evidence of appellant's background, family, and other 

matters that show he "is a real person." Appellant fails to demonstrate 

deficiency or prejudice. Appellant makes only bare claims and presented 

no such "humanizing" evidence at the evidentiary hearing. Further, the 

jury found appellant guilty, and he does not explain how a "humanized" 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

3 

.141141115V4R4121 
defendant would have affected that outcome. We therefore conclude that 

the district court did not err in denying this claim. 

Fourth, appellant claims counsel was ineffective for not 

making offers of proof at trial, fully investigating and arguing the critical 

issues of the case, using visual aids to assist the jury with the financial 

documents admitted into evidence, and offering jury instructions directing 

the jury that this matter should be disposed of as a civil case and that he 

was prejudiced by the cumulative effect of counsel's errors. These claims 

were not raised below, and we therefore decline to consider them 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. 

Direct-appeal claims 

Appellant next claims that the district court erred in not 

considering his claims that the State failed to prove the requisite intent, 

he was denied the right to a fair and impartial jury, and the trial court 

erred in refusing to allow appellant to impeach the victim.' Each of these 

claims was raised and rejected on direct appeal, and the doctrine of the 

law of the case prevents further litigation of these issues. Hall v. State, 91 

Nev. 314, 316, 535 P.2d 797, 799 (1975). Appellant made no attempt to 

argue that the doctrine of the law of the case should not apply here. See 

Hsu v. County of Clark, 123 Nev. 625, 632, 173 P.3d 724, 729-30 (2007); 

see also Maresca, 103 Nev. at 673, 748 P.2d at 6. To the extent appellant 

suggests that the ineffective assistance of appellate counsel may excuse 

'Appellant's claim regarding impeachment was not raised in the 

petition below, and we therefore decline to consider it on appeal in the 

first instance. Davis, 107 Nev. at 606, 817 P.2d at 1173. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

4 
any bar, appellant did not argue this below and we therefore decline to 

consider it on appeal in the first instance. Davis, 107 Nev. at 606, 817 

P.2d at 1173. We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in 

denying these claims. 

For the foregoing reasons, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

Douglas 

Saitta 

cc: Hon. William Rogers, District Judge 

Cheri K. Emm-Smith 

Churchill County District Attorney 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Churchill County Clerk 

5