Means v. State, 120 Nev. 1001, 1012, 103 P.3d 25, 33 (2004). We give 

deference to the district 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). 

First, appellant claimed that his trial counsel failed to 

investigate and interview witnesses. In particular, appellant claimed that 

his counsel failed to discover that a witness, R. Kempf, was on the payroll 

of a gang, that he allowed minors, drugs and guns into the bar and kept 

others out of the bar for payment, and that Kempf had lied about 

appellant being the initial aggressor. Appellant claimed that counsel did 

not interview M. Dobbs, a defense witness, who could have provided 

critical information to discredit Kempf. Appellant failed to demonstrate 

that his trial counsel's performance was deficient or that he was 

prejudiced. Trial counsel did seek to present impeachment evidence, and 

the district court ruled that specific instances elicited from other witnesses 

would not be allowed. At trial, Kempf was asked and denied that he 

allowed minors, drugs, or guns into the bar in exchange for something 

given in return. Despite the district court's ruling, Dobbs did testify that 

Kempf was known to allow minors, drugs, and guns into the bar and that 

Kempf was not a "good guy." Appellant failed to demonstrate that further 

investigation and interviews would have elicited admissible evidence that 

would have had a reasonable probability of altering the outcome at trial 

given the district court's ruling, the video of the incident, and the 

testimony of the witnesses at trial regarding the events preceding and 

following the shooting. Therefore, we conclude that the district court did 

not err in denying this claim. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A e 
Second, appellant claimed that his trial counsel failed to 

effectively cross-examine Kempf about his reasons to fabricate and 

implicate appellant as the aggressor. Appellant claimed that it was 

possible that Kempf had received death threats. Appellant failed to 

demonstrate that his counsel's performance was deficient or that he was 

prejudiced. A defense witness, Dobbs, did testify that Kempf had told her 

he was receiving death threats. Appellant failed to demonstrate that 

asking Kempf about any threats would have had a reasonable probability 

of altering the outcome at trial given the video of the incident and the 

testimony of the witnesses at trial regarding events preceding and 

following the shooting. Therefore, we conclude that the district court did 

not err in denying this claim. 

Third, appellant claimed that his trial counsel was ineffective 

in failing to hire expert witnesses to determine the angles of the shots to 

show that appellant was not the shooter, a ballistics expert to challenge 

the testimony that three guns were involved and that fingerprints cannot 

be tested for or found after a bullet is fired, and an expert on gunshot 

residue. In light of the video evidence and the testimony of the witnesses, 

appellant failed to demonstrate that his trial counsel's performance was 

deficient or that there was a reasonable probability of a different outcome 

had trial counsel hired and presented the above-mentioned experts. 

Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying this 

claim. 

Fourth, appellant claimed that cumulative errors of trial 

counsel warranted relief. However, as appellant failed to demonstrate any 

deficiencies, this claim lacked merit. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 1947A 
Pickering 

J. 

et-itit-st_9 -J. 

Parraguirre 

, J. 

Saitta 

Next, appellant claimed that his appellate counsel was 

ineffective for failing to federalize his direct appeal claims. Appellant 

failed to demonstrate that his counsel's performance was deficient or that 

he was prejudiced. See Kirksey v. State, 112 Nev. 980, 998, 923 P.2d 1102, 

1114 (1996). Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not err in 

denying this claim. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

cc: Hon. David A. Hardy, District Judge 

Orlando Scott Martin, Jr. 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 4 

(0) 1941A