First, appellant argues that counsel was ineffective for failing 

to retain an independent defense expert to evaluate appellant's 

competency and to explain to the jury the impact of appellant's mental 

illnesses on his ability to appreciate the consequences of his actions. 

Appellant's bare claims have failed to demonstrate deficiency or prejudice. 

Appellant had been found competent to stand trial, and he did not allege 

any facts that should have led reasonable counsel to question that 

finding.' Appellant also failed to state what the impact of his mental 

illnesses were on his ability to appreciate the consequences of his actions 

or how testimony to that effect would have affected the outcome of trial 

We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in denying this 

claim. 

Second, appellant argues that counsel was ineffective for 

failing to present mitigating evidence at the sentencing hearing. 

Appellant's bare claims have failed to demonstrate deficiency or prejudice. 

Appellant noted that counsel did not prepare a sentencing memorandum, 

obtain statements in support of appellant, or address anything in the 

presentencing investigation report (PSI), but he did not specify what the 

memorandum or statements would have included, what needed to be 

addressed in the PSI, or how any of it would have affected the outcome of 

the sentencing hearing. Similarly, appellant complains that counsel did 

not mention things such as appellant's support network, employment 

"Appellant generally refers to a March 14, 2009, mental health 

assessment, but he did not include that assessment in his appendix or 

provide any details from the assessment other than that appellant was 

diagnosed with certain mental illnesses. Appellant further acknowledges 

that he was found competent to stand trial on December 15, 2009. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A 0 
history, and roots in the community, but he again failed to provide any 

specific facts regarding those ties or how they could have affected the 

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

denying this claim. 

Third, appellant argues that counsel was ineffective for failing 

to adequately communicate with him. Appellant's bare claims have failed 

to demonstrate deficiency or prejudice. Appellant complains that counsel 

did not respond to a letter in which appellant requested that some motions 

be filed and investigations be conducted and that counsel did not provide 

requested copies of preliminary hearing transcripts or the victim's medical 

records. Appellant did not state what motions he wanted filed, what 

investigation counsel should have undertaken, what the outcomes of 

either of those actions would have been, or how counsel's taking any of the 

aforementioned actions could have affected the outcome at trial. See, e.g., 

Molina v. State, 120 Nev. 185, 192, 87 P.3d 533, 538 (2004) (upholding the 

denial of an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim because appellant did 

not demonstrate what a more thorough investigation would have 

revealed). We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in 

denying this claim. 

Fourth, appellant argues that counsel was ineffective for 

denying him his right to a speedy trial. Appellant has failed to 

demonstrate deficiency or prejudice. Counsel stated that he was 

unprepared to go forward with the originally scheduled trial, and 

appellant has failed to demonstrate that it was objectively unreasonable 

for counsel to move to continue the trial in order to be prepared. Further, 

appellant's bare claim that the continuance gave the State more time to 

investigate failed to specify what additional information the State 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 19(I7A 
discovered during the continuance or how it affected the outcome at trial. 

We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in denying this 

claim. 

Fifth, appellant argues that counsel was ineffective for failing 

to object to the district court's handling of the complaining witness or to 

move for a mistrial because of it. Appellant has failed to demonstrate 

deficiency or prejudice. The witness was refusing to answer defense 

counsel's questions and was instead attempting to engage in his own 

narrative. The district court excused the jury to admonish the witness at 

length regarding the basic trial framework and that he must constrain 

himself to answering the questions posed. Appellant failed to demonstrate 

that counsel was objectively unreasonable in not objecting to the district 

court's efforts to reign in the unruly witness. Further, counsel's decision 

not to move for a mistrial was clearly strategic as he highlighted in closing 

argument the witness's obstreperous behavior on the witness stand and 

used it to attack the witness's credibility. We therefore conclude that the 

district court did not err in denying this claim. 

Sixth, appellant argues that counsel was ineffective because 

he "assisted" the State's illiterate complaining witness by suggesting that 

the witness's voluntary statement to police be read to him outside the 

presence of the jury when he was unable to recall what he had told the 

police. Appellant• has failed to demonstrate deficiency or prejudice. 

Appellant does not state how this action substantially differs from 

allowing a literate witness to read his previous statement to himself in 

order, to refresh his recollection and/or to impeach him Further, even 

after the reading, counsel continued to impeach the witness's testimony 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 4 

(0) 1947A efro 
J. 

J. 

where it differed from what was in the voluntary statement. We therefore 

conclude that the district court did not err in denying this claim. 

Finally, appellant argues that the cumulative error of counsel 

warrants the reversal of his conviction. Because appellant failed to 

demonstrate error, he necessarily failed to demonstrate cumulative error. 

For the foregoing reasons, we find appellant's claims without 

merit, and we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

Douglas 

cc: Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge 

Matthew D. Caning 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 5 

(0) 1947A