victim that appellant sexually abused her. Appellant fails to demonstrate 

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

prejudiced. Counsel sought introduction of this evidence at trial, the 

district court concluded it was inadmissible, and this court affirmed that 

decision on direct appeal. Agavo v. State, Docket No. 48444 (Order of 

Affirmance, May 29, 2009). Appellant fails to demonstrate a reasonable 

probability of a different outcome at trial had counsel raised additional 

arguments pretrial regarding this evidence as appellant fails to 

demonstrate the victim's allegations were false. See Abbott v. State, 122 

Nev. 715, 733, 138 P.3d 462, 474 (2006) (citing Efrain M. v. State, 107 Nev. 

947, 950, 823 P.2d 264, 265 (1991)). Therefore, the district court did not 

err in denying this claim. 

Second, appellant argues that his trial counsel was ineffective 

for failing to hire an art expert to testify that appellant did not create a 

drawing that the child victim stated appellant gave to her. Appellant 

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

that he was prejudiced. Appellant testified at trial that he did not create 

the drawing and appellant does not demonstrate that it was unreasonable 

for counsel to fail to present further testimony of this nature. Appellant 

fails to demonstrate a reasonable probability of a different outcome at trial 

had counsel sought expert testimony regarding creation of the drawing. 

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

Next, appellant argues that the district court erred by 

declining to reconsider its decision pursuant to NRCP 60(b) or allow him 

to amend a denied claim pursuant to NRS 34.750. Appellant argues that 

he had a misunderstanding regarding his burden to provide an expert 

opinion for his claim regarding the creation of the drawing and that the 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2 
‘,„ „Let )43?. 

Douglas 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

Egi 

Saitta 

3 

Rita 

district court should have allowed him to supplement his petition with a 

report from an art expert. Even assuming, without deciding, that a 

motion pursuant to NRCP 60(b) is applicable in a post-conviction 

proceeding, see NRS 34.780(1) (stating that the Nevada Rules of Civil 

Procedure apply to proceedings for post-conviction petitions for a writ of 

habeas corpus to the extent they are not inconsistent with NRS Chapter 

34); see also Klein v. Warden, 118 Nev. 305, 309-10, 43 P.3d 1029, 1032-33 

(2002) (stating that civil tolling provisions related to the civil rules of 

procedure do not apply to appeals from orders of the district court 

resolving post-conviction habeas corpus petitions), appellant fails to 

demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion in denying 

appellant's motion. See Culinary & Hotel Serv. Workers Union v. Haugen, 

76 Nev. 424, 430, 357 P.2d 113, 116 (1960). In addition, appellant fails to 

demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion in declining to 

allow appellant to amend his claims. Cf. State v. Powell, 122 Nev. 751, 

758, 138 P.3d 453, 458 (2006) (stating that the district court has broad 

authority to permit a petitioner to raise new claims in post-conviction 

proceedings). Therefore, appellant fails to demonstrate that the district 

court erred. 

Having concluded that appellant is not entitled to relief, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 
cc: Hon. Valorie J. Vega, District Judge 

James C. Gallo, Jr. 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

EMiNMEilEffi;e2 

4