adequate investigation must specify what a more thorough investigation 

would have revealed. See Molina v. State, 120 Nev. 185, 192, 87 P.3d 533, 

538 (2004). 

First, appellant argues that counsel was ineffective for failing 

to obtain a psychological evaluation of appellant. Appellant's bare claim 

has failed to demonstrate deficiency or prejudice. Appellant's claim below 

was that counsel should have obtained a psychological evaluation because 

appellant was only 16 years old when he committed the crime. While a 

defendant's age is a relevant factor at sentencing, appellant provides no 

authority in support of his apparent contention that counsel is per se 

deficient where he does not seek a psychological evaluation just because a 

defendant is a minor.' Moreover, appellant admitted that he did not know 

what information a psychological evaluation would produce, merely 

speculating that it would result in "classic mitigation evidence." Because 

he did not indicate what a more thorough investigation into mitigation 

evidence would have revealed, appellant failed to state specific facts that 

would demonstrate a reasonable probability of a different outcome had an 

evaluation been completed. We therefore conclude that the district court 

did not err in denying this claim without an evidentiary hearing. 

Second, appellant argues that counsel was ineffective for 

failing to present mitigation evidence at sentencing. Appellant has failed 

'On appeal, appellant points to information contained in the 

presentence investigation report and suggests that it may have been a 

basis for counsel to seek the evaluation. This is new argument not 

presented to the district court below, and we need not consider it on 

appeal. See Davis v. State, 107 Nev. 600, 606, 817 P.2d 1169, 1173 (1991), 

overruled on other grounds by Means v. State, 120 Nev. 1001, 1012-13, 103 

P.3d 25, 33 (2004). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A 
to demonstrate deficiency or prejudice. Appellant's claim below that 

counsel failed to present "any mitigating factors" was belied by the record. 

In mitigation, counsel submitted ten letters of support and repeatedly 

referred to appellant's youth at the time of the crime. Moreover, appellant 

failed to specify in his petition below what additional mitigation 

information counsel should have uncovered and how there was a 

reasonable probability of it affecting the outcome of the sentencing 

hearing. 2We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in 

denying this claim without an evidentiary hearing. 3 

Appellant next argues that the district court abused its 

discretion in denying his motion for funds to obtain a psychological 

evaluation in order to seek additional mitigating evidence that counsel 

should have presented to the sentencing court. Appellant failed to provide 

this court with a copy of his motion or the district court's denial of the 

motion. We are thus precluded from reviewing the district court's 

disposition and, therefore, conclude that the district court did not err in 

denying the motion. See State u. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 100 Nev. 90, 

102, 677 P.2d 1044, 1052 (1984) (presuming the propriety of district court 

actions in the absence of a showing of error); Greene v. State, 96 Nev. 555, 

2To the extent that appellant has specified additional mitigation 

evidence on appeal, it is new argument that was not presented below, and 

accordingly, we need not consider it on appeal. See id. Moreover, much of 

the mitigation evidence to which appellant points was contained in the 

presentence investigation report, which the sentencing court stated it had 

reviewed and considered. 

sTo the extent that appellant claims counsel was ineffective for any 

other reason, the argument was not raised before the district court, and 

we need not consider it on appeal. See id. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 1947A 
558, 612 P.2d 686, 688 (1980) ("The burden to make a proper appellate 

record rests on appellant."). 

For the foregoing reasons, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

Saitta 

cc: Hon. Carolyn Ellsworth, District Judge 

Langford McLetchie LLC 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 4 

(0) 1947A .91M10