100 Nev. 430, 432-33, 683 P.2d 504, 505 (1984) (adopting the test in 

Strickland). To prove ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a 

petitioner must demonstrate that counsel's performance fell below an 

objective standard of reasonableness and the omitted issue would have 

had a reasonable probability of success on appeal. Kirksey v. State, 112 

Nev. 980, 998, 923 P.2d 1102, 1114 (1996). We give deference to the 

district court's factual findings if supported by substantial evidence 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, Connors contends that the district court erred by 

denying his claim that trial counsel were ineffective for failing to introduce 

the testimony of Sean Trail, Professor Etheridge, Adam Magyari, and 

Norman Rita. 2Connors asserts that these witnesses would have bolstered 

his self-defense claim We conclude that no relief is warranted. The 

district court held an evidentiary hearing, wherein one of Connors' trial 

attorneys testified that he did not call Trail, Etheridge, and Magyari 

because their testimony would have been more harmful than helpful. See 

Doleman v. State, 112 Nev. 843, 848, 921 P.2d 278, 280-81 (1996) 

(explaining that tactical decisions are virtually unchallengeable). Counsel 

also testified that Rita had been deported and could not be located. See 

Donovan v. State, 94 Nev. 671, 675, 584 P.2d 708, 711 (1978) (explaining 

that counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to attempt futile 

actions). Connors fails to explain how counsel was deficient or how he was 

2Connors also contends that counsel were ineffective for failing to 

introduce the testimony of his codefendant, but he concedes that counsel 

could not introduce this testimony. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A (e 
prejudiced. Accordingly, he fails to demonstrate that the district court 

erred by denying this claim. 

Second, Connors contends that the district court erred by 

denying his claim that trial counsel were ineffective for failing to move for 

a severance. We conclude that no relief is warranted because counsel 

moved for a severance on several occasions. Connors fails to explain what 

additional actions counsel should have taken or how those actions would 

have been successful. Accordingly, he fails to demonstrate that the 

district court erred by denying this claim. 

Third, Connors contends that the district court erred by 

denying his claim that trial counsel were ineffective for failing to 

coordinate with codefendant's counsel Connors fails to provide any 

argument or relevant legal authority in support of this contention, and we 

decline to consider it. See Maresca v. State, 103 Nev. 669, 673, 748 P.2d 3, 

6 (1987). 

Fourth, Connors contends that the district court erred by 

denying his claim that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to 

challenge the first-degree murder instruction given at trial on the grounds 

that it did not define willfulness. We conclude that no relief is warranted 

because, at the time of Connors' trial, willfulness was not required to be 

separately defined See Powell v. State, 108 Nev. 700, 709, 838 P.2d 921, 

927 (1992) (holding that willfulness need not be defined), vacated on other 

grounds by Powell v. Nevada, 511 U.S. 79 (1994). Accordingly, Connors 

fails to demonstrate that the district court erred by denying this claim. 

Fifth, Connors contends that the district court erred by 

denying his claim that trial counsel were ineffective for failing to challenge 

(1) "the visibility of the crime scene," (2) gun records, (3) the testimony of 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 1947A 
Katrina Giancontieri, and (4) the testimony of Gloria Lippman, as well as 

his claim that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge 

pretrial rulings which limited David Hughes' testimony but did not limit 

Dr. Green's testimony. Regarding these assertions, Connors fails to 

explain how counsel was deficient or how he was prejudiced. Accordingly, 

he fails to demonstrate that the district court erred by denying these 

claims. 

Sixth, Connors contends that the district court erred by 

denying his claim that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to 

argue prosecutorial misconduct. Specifically, Connors alleges that 

appellate counsel should have challenged the prosecutor's (1) use of 

speaking objections, (2) description of Dr. Green as an expert, (3) voice-ofsociety argument, and (4) statement that Connors and his codefendant 

were animals. Regarding his first three contentions, Connors does not 

provide any argument or identify where in the record the alleged 

misconduct occurred and therefore we decline to address them. Regarding 

his last contention, trial counsel did not object to the prosecutor's 

statement and Connors fails to demonstrate that appellate counsel's 

challenge would have been successful under plain error review. See 

Valdez v. State, 124 Nev. 1172, 1190, 196 P.3d 465, 477 (2008) (explaining 

that "an error that is plain from a review of the record does not require 

reversal unless the defendant demonstrates that the error affected his or 

her substantial rights, by causing actual prejudice or a miscarriage of 

justice" (internal quotation marks omitted)). Moreover, the statement was 

made during sentencing and Connors has not challenged his sentence. 

Accordingly, he fails to demonstrate that the district court erred by 

denying this claim. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 4 

(0) 19474 e 
J. 

Pickering 

Seventh, Connors argues that the district court erred by 

denying numerous ineffective-assistance claims as procedurally barred. 

Connors is mistaken. The district court considered each of Connors' 

ineffective-assistance claims and denied them on their merits. Connors 

does not mention the district court's resolution of these claims and his 

opening brief merely lists them with no explanation or argument. 

Therefore, we decline to consider them. 3 Maresca, 103 Nev. at 673, 748 

P.2d at 6. 

We conclude that no relief is warranted, and we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

Saitta 

Gibbons 

cc: Hon. Valerie Adair, District Judge 

Nguyen & Lay 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

3Connors also asserts that the district court erred by denying his 

claim of cumulative error. We have found no error to cumulate. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 5 

(0) 1947A e