SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) I947A 

the law to those facts de novo. Lader v. Warden, 121 Nev. 682, 686, 120 

P.3d 1164, 1166 (2005). 

First, appellant argues that his pretrial counsel was 

ineffective for failing to seek the disqualification of Judge Victor L. Miller 

and Judge Donald Mosley. Appellant failed to demonstrate deficiency or 

prejudice. Appellant claims that Judge Miller should have recused 

himself because he had recused himself in a previous case involving 

appellant. However, in response to counsel's inquiry, Judge Miller stated 

that he had recused himself previously because he had knowledge of the 

victims in that case. Because Judge Miller did not have knowledge of the 

victims in this case, counsel had no basis to seek his disqualification. See 

Ennis v. State, 122 Nev. 694, 706, 137 P.3d 1095, 1103 (2006) ("Trial 

counsel need not lodge futile objections to avoid ineffective assistance of 

counsel claims."). Appellant also claims that Judge Mosley should have 

recused himself because he was biased, as he denied appellant's motion for 

expert and investigative fees and expressed concerns about the costs of 

indigent defense. Appellant failed to demonstrate that Judge Mosley's 

rulings and comments constituted bias, see Cameron v. State, 114 Nev. 

1281, 1283, 968 P.2d 1169, 1171 (1998), and thus a motion to disqualify on 

this basis would not have been successful. Furthermore, to the extent that 

appellant argues that Judge Mosley improperly denied his motion for 

investigative fees, he cannot demonstrate prejudice, as this court 

concluded on direct appeal that the denial of the motion was harmless 

error in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt presented at trial. 

Tiffany v. State, Docket No. 49817 (Order of Affirmance, April 13, 2010). 

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

Second, appellant argues that his pretrial counsel was 

ineffective for failing to lodge objections during the preliminary hearing. 

Appellant failed to demonstrate deficiency or prejudice, as he did not 

2 
SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

explain what objections counsel should have made and how those 

objections would have affected the outcome of the proceedings. See 

Hargrove v. State, 100 Nev. 498, 502-03, 686 P.2d 222, 225 (1984). 

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

Third, appellant contends that his pretrial counsel was 

ineffective for failing to object to the State's supplemental notice of 

witnesses. Appellant failed to demonstrate deficiency or prejudice, as the 

notice was timely filed and counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing 

to lodge futile objections. See NRS 174.234; Ennis, 122 Nev. at 706, 137 

P.3d at 1103. To the extent that appellant argues that the notice would 

have been untimely had counsel asserted his right to a speedy trial, he 

fails to make any cogent argument on appeal regarding his right to a 

speedy trial. See Maresca v. State, 103 Nev. 669, 673, 748 P.2d 3, 6 (1987). 

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

Fourth, appellant contends that trial counsel was ineffective 

for failing to object to the district court's denial of appellant's motions to 

reduce bail. This claim is not cognizable in a post-conviction petition for a 

writ of habeas corpus, as it does not challenge his conviction or sentence. 

NRS 34.720(1); NRS 34.724(1). Therefore, the district court did not err in 

denying this claim. 

Fifth, appellant contends that trial counsel was ineffective for 

failing to object to improper questions and testimony at trial. Appellant 

asserts that counsel should have objected to: (1) J.M.'s speculative 

testimony about how many times he smoked marijuana with appellant; 

(2) C.J.'s and K.T.'s testimony about T.T. spending the night in appellant's 

room, as they lacked personal knowledge; (3) the prosecutor's leading 

questions of K.T. regarding appellant's signals simulating oral sex; 

(4) appellant's ex-wife's hearsay testimony about K.T. doing drugs at 

appellant's house; and (5) the prosecutor's premature use of a written 

3 
statement to refresh T.T.'s memory about appellant's threats. Appellant 

failed to demonstrate deficiency or prejudice. The testimony of J.M., C.J., 

and K.T. was based on their own personal knowledge, and thus any 

objection would have been unsuccessful. See Ennis, 122 Nev. at 706, 137 

P.3d at 1103. Counsel did in fact object to the ex-wife's hearsay testimony, 

and counsel was not unreasonable for failing to object to the prosecutor's 

improper questions where the testimony itself was admissible. 

Furthermore, in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, appellant 

could not demonstrate a reasonable probability of a different outcome at 

trial had counsel made these objections. Therefore, the district court did 

not err in denying this claim. 

Sixth, appellant argues that trial counsel was ineffective for 

failing to timely move for a psychological evaluation of victim T.T. 

Appellant failed to demonstrate prejudice. In denying his untimely 

motion for a psychological evaluation, the district court found that an 

evaluation was not warranted because the victim's testimony was 

supported by corroborating evidence and there was no indication that the 

victim's mental state affected his veracity. See Abbott v. Nevada, 122 Nev. 

715, 724, 138 P.3d 462, 468 (2006). Therefore, appellant failed to show a 

reasonable probability of a different outcome had counsel filed a timely 

motion. Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying this claim. 

Seventh, appellant argues that trial counsel was ineffective for 

failing to permit appellant to meaningfully participate in the preparation 

of his defense. Specifically, appellant contends that counsel failed to file 

various motions requested by appellant, failed to communicate with him 

after the trial, and failed to make a Bradyl request for the victim's school 

'Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

4 
J. 

records. Appellant failed to demonstrate prejudice. Appellant did not 

explain how counsel's failure to file various motions and communicate 

with appellant after trial affected the outcome of the proceedings. See 

Hargrove, 100 Nev. 498 at 502, 686 P.2d at 225. Appellant's Brady claim 

was rejected by this court on direct appeal, and thus appellant could not 

demonstrate a reasonable probability of a different outcome but for 

counsel's alleged failure to request the school records. Therefore, the 

district court did not err in denying this claim. 

Finally, appellant argues that the cumulative effect of 

ineffective assistance of counsel warrants vacating his judgment of 

conviction. Because appellant's ineffective-assistance claims lacked merit, 

he failed to demonstrate any cumulative error. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

Gibbons 

Douglas 

Saitta 

cc: Hon. Doug Smith, District Judge 

Matthew D. Carling 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

MENEjlA:MEgin 

J.