Nev. 980, 988, 923 P.2d 1102, 1107 (1996). Both components of the 

inquiry must be shown. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 697 

(1984). We give deference to the court's factual findings if supported by 

substantial 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). An evidentiary hearing is required 

if the petitioner presents claims supported by specific facts that are not 

belied the record, which if true, would entitle the petitioner to relief. See 

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

Appellant argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing 

to obtain independent DNA testing of the evidence in light of the 

subsequent firing of the technician who processed the evidence in his case. 

Appellant fails to demonstrate that his trial counsel was ineffective in 

regards to the DNA testing. Trial counsel could not have challenged the 

results of the DNA testing before the plea based upon the firing of the 

technician approximately one year after the conviction. And appellant 

fails to demonstrate that trial counsel should otherwise have had reason 

to independently test the DNA evidence. Appellant further fails to 

demonstrate by a reasonable probability that he would not have entered a 

plea and would have gone to trial absent trial counsel's failure to seek 

independent testing of the DNA test results in light of the benefit he 

received by entry of his plea and the evidence against him, including his 

own confession and the victim's testimony at the grand jury proceedings, 

which included her identification of appellant in a photograph. Therefore, 

the district court did not err in denying this claim without conducting an 

evidentiary hearing. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A e 
Next, appellant argues that the district court erred in 

permitting the State to retest the sample when the district court granted 

his motion for independent DNA testing. We conclude that appellant fails 

to demonstrate any error. First, the district court did not grant his motion 

for independent testing, but rather requested further proceedings on the 

motion to delve into the chronology of events and the involvement of the 

fired technician in this case. Second, an independent review was 

undertaken. At a subsequent hearing, an affidavit from the Director of 

Laboratory Services for the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department 

was presented averring that the "DNA case file for [the instant case] was 

independently reviewed by an external, unbiased third party entity and 

the DNA results previously rendered by [the former technician] were 

found to be supported by the data and case notes generated at the time of 

the original testing." In light of appellant's failure to demonstrate that his 

trial counsel was ineffective as set forth above, without any consideration 

of the subsequent affidavit, appellant fails to demonstrate any error in 

regards to his motion. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

J. 

Hardesty 

Douglas 

ga° J. 

Cherry 1124(

J. 

SUPREME COUFC1 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 1947A 
cc: Hon. Rob Bare, District Judge 

Christopher R. Oram 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A