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, appellant claims that counsel was ineffective because 

counsel violated his right to a speedy trial. Appellant fails to demonstrate 

that counsel was deficient or that he was prejudiced. First, appellant 

mistakenly relies on authority regarding the government being the cause 

of the delay and fails to provide any case cites indicating that his own 

counsel can violate his speedy trial rights. We note that appellant had five 

different attorneys in a three-year timespan. These attorneys filed 

numerous motions, sought discovery, and attempted to secure a plea 

bargain with the State. There does not appear to have been a lack of 

diligence on the part of counsel. Second, appellant fails to demonstrate a 

reasonable probability of a different outcome at trial had the trial 

commenced earlier. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying 

this claim. 

Second, appellant claims that counsel was ineffective for 

failing to effectively communicate regarding plea negotiations. Appellant 

claims that counsel attempted to coerce him into pleading guilty but also 

did not explain the consequences of going to trial and what the mandatory 

minimums would have been if he were convicted of all charges. Appellant 

fails to demonstrate that trial counsel was deficient. First, appellant did 

not plead guilty. Further, appellant does not explain what coercive tactics 

counsel used to attempt to coerce appellant into taking the plea 

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

Third, appellant claims that counsel was ineffective for failing 

to communicate with appellant prior to trial. Appellant claims that after 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

04) 1947A e 
he refused to accept the plea agreement, his counsel stopped 

communicating with him and failed to properly work his case. Appellant 

claims that this failure caused counsel to not be prepared for trial. 

Appellant fails to demonstrate that counsel was deficient or that he was 

prejudiced. Counsel who negotiated the potential plea agreement was not 

the counsel that took appellant's case to trial. Therefore, appellant's 

claims that his "plea" counsel failed to communicate with him, and 

therefore, trial counsel was not prepared for trial is without merit. 

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

Fourth, appellant claims that counsel was ineffective for 

insisting that appellant testify at the suppression hearing and for failing 

to properly prepare him for the hearing. Appellant fails to demonstrate 

that counsel was deficient or that he was prejudiced. Appellant's 

testimony was the only way to demonstrate counsel's theory that the 

interview at appellant's house was a custodial interrogation.' Further, 

appellant fails •to demonstrate how he was not properly prepared for 

testifying. Finally, he fails to demonstrate a reasonable probability of a 

different outcome at the hearing had appellant not testified or had counsel 

further prepared him. Appellant was not in custody at the time of the 

interview. See State v. Taylor, 114 Nev. 1071, 1082, 968 P.2d 315, 323 

(1998) (listing factors to consider whether a person is in custody during a 

police interview). Therefore, the district court did not err in denying this 

claim. 

'We note that appellant's testimony from the suppression hearing 

was not used at appellant's trial. 

SUPREME COUFtT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 1947A e 
Fifth, appellant claims that counsel was ineffective for failing 

to engage in pretrial discovery and preparation. Specifically, appellant 

claims that counsel failed to timely obtain records and failed to contact an 

out-of-state therapist who treated the victim. Appellant fails to 

demonstrate that counsel was deficient or that he was prejudiced. It 

appears from the record that counsel did obtain the records and appellant 

fails to demonstrate how having the records earlier would have affected 

the outcome at trial. As to the out-of-state therapist, appellant fails to 

state what this therapist would have testified about and how the 

testimony would have had a reasonable probability of altering the outcome 

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

Sixth, appellant claims that counsel was ineffective for failing 

to object during many of the pretrial and trial proceedings. Specifically, 

appellant cites to two examples. The first example involved the victim's 

father testifying regarding what his daughter told him, which appellant 

claims was hearsay. Appellant fails to demonstrate that counsel was 

deficient for failing to object to this statement because it was not hearsay 

because the victim testified, was cross-examined, the father's testimony 

was consistent with the victim's testimony, and it was offered to rebut a 

charge against her of recent fabrication. NRS 51.035(2)(b); Donovan v. 

State, 94 Nev. 671, 675, 584 P.2d 708, 711 (1978) (holding that counsel is 

not deficient for failing to make futile motions). 

The second example involved the detective's testimony 

regarding the delayed disclosure of victims. Appellant claims that counsel 

should have objected based on a lack of foundation. Appellant fails to 

demonstrate that counsel was deficient or that he was prejudiced. While 

counsel did not object on this exact ground, counsel did object to the 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 4 

(0) 1947A aSlfro. 
detective's testimony because the detective was not noticed as an expert. 

This objection was overruled. Appellant fails to demonstrate that a second 

objection based on lack of foundation would have been successful or that 

there was a reasonable probability of a different outcome at trial had 

counsel objected a second time. 

To the extent that appellant makes a general claim regarding 

counsel's failure to object before and during trial, appellant fails to support 

this claim with specific facts that, if true, entitled him to relief. Hargrove, 

100 Nev. at 502-03, 686 P.2d at 225. Therefore, the district court did not 

err in denying this claim. 

Seventh, appellant claims that counsel was ineffective for 

failing to retain defense experts. Specifically, appellant claims that 

counsel should have retained an expert to refute the detective's 

statements regarding delayed disclosures and victims in general. Further, 

he claims that counsel should have obtained a psychiatric evaluation of 

the victim or an expert to observe her demeanor, or an expert to review 

• her medical and psychiatric records. Appellant fails to demonstrate that 

he was prejudiced because he fails to demonstrate a reasonable probability 

of a different outcome at trial had these experts been retained given 

appellant's own admissions. 2Therefore, the district court did not err in 

denying this claim. 

Eighth, appellant claims that counsel was ineffective for 

failing to ensure a record was made of unrecorded bench conferences. 

Appellant failed to demonstrate that counsel was deficient because he 

2We note that counsel did file a motion to have the victim undergo 

an independent psychological examination which was denied by the 

district court. Therefore, this claim was belied by the record. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 5 

(0) 1947A steito 
failed to demonstrate that the missing portions of the record "are so 

significant that their absence precludes this court from conducting a 

meaningful review, of the alleged errors that the appellant identified and 

the prejudicial effect of any error." Preciado v. State, 130 Nev. , 

318 P.3d 176, 178 (2014). Appellant does not make any specific argument 

about any unrecorded bench conferences in this case. Instead appellant 

only makes a general argument that the standard should be changed. We 

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

this claim. 

Ninth, appellant claims that counsel was ineffective for failing 

to subpoena material witnesses. Appellant claims that counsel was 

ineffective for failing to subpoena the victim's father and the victim's aunt. 

Appellant fails to demonstrate that counsel was deficient or that he was 

prejudiced. As to the victim's father, he was subpoenaed by the State and 

testified for both the State and the defense. As to the victim's aunt, the 

court concluded on direct appeal that the information that appellant 

sought to introduce from the aunt was presented through other witnesses. 

DeCastro v. State, Docket No. 55184 (Order of Affirmance, February 24, 

2012). Further, appellant fails to demonstrate a reasonable probability of 

a different outcome at trial had the aunt testified given the testimony by 

the victim and appellant's own admissions. Therefore, the district court 

did not err in denying this claim. 

Tenth, appellant claims that counsel was ineffective for failing 

to move to dismiss the count of attempted sexual assault on a minor under 

the age of 14. Appellant fails to demonstrate that counsel was deficient. 

Considering that this court concluded on direct appeal that there was 

sufficient evidence presented at trial to prove the attempted sexual 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 6 

I907A elro 
Parraguirre 

assault, id., it appears that a motion to dismiss the count would have been 

futile, and therefore, appellant cannot demonstrate that counsel's failure 

to file a motion was objectively unreasonable. Donovan, 94 Nev. at 675, 

584 P.2d at 711. Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying this 

claim. 

Eleventh, appellant claims that counsel was ineffective for 

failing to file a sentencing memorandum prior to sentencing. Appellant 

failed to provide a transcript of the sentencing hearing for this court's 

review. The burden is on appellant to provide an adequate record 

enabling this court to review assignments of error. See Thomas v. State, 

120 Nev. 37, 43 n.4, 83 P.3d 818, 822 n.4 (2004); see also Greene v. State, 

96 Nev. 555, 558, 612 P.2d 686, 688 (1980). Therefore, we are unable to 

review this claim to determine whether counsel was deficient or whether 

appellant was prejudiced by the failure to file a sentencing memorandum. 

Finally, appellant claims that the cumulative errors of counsel 

entitle him to relief. Appellant fails to demonstrate that any alleged 

errors by counsel, singly or cumulatively, would have had a reasonable 

probability of altering the outcome at trial. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

Adeuti 

Saitta 

J. 

J. 

J. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 7 

(7) 19474 44113094 
cc: Hon. Douglas Smith, District Judge 

Matthew D. Carling 

Drew Christensen 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 8 

(0) 1941A