PIEINSESUZilkii:AEEEMIMEESSE EIBEI 

First, Orellana contended that trial counsel was ineffective for 

failing to request an independent psychological evaluation of the victim. 

Because Orellana failed to show that such an evaluation would have 

resulted in a different outcome at trial, we conclude that the district court 

did not err by denying this claim. Furthermore, Orellana was not entitled 

to an evidentiary hearing on this claim because, even if he established the 

deficiency of counsel, he failed to allege specific facts satisfying his burden 

of proving resulting prejudice.' See Strickland v. Washington,466 U.S. 

668, 687-88 (1984) (explaining that petitioner must show both deficient 

performance and resulting prejudice in order to obtain relief). 

Second, Orellana contended that trial counsel was ineffective 

for failing to object to the State's comments on Orellana's constitutional 

right to remain silent and appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to 

raise this issue on appeal. Our review of the record reveals that trial 

counsel did object to both comments and thoroughly clarified the earlier 

comment made by the State during voir dire. Therefore, we conclude that 

trial counsel's performance was not deficient. We also conclude that 

Orellana did not satisfy his burden of proving that appellate counsel's 

failure to include one of the two comments in his appellate brief resulted 

in prejudice. See Foster v. State, 121 Nev. 165, 170, 111 P.3d 1083, 1087 

'We also note that Orellana failed to allege specific factual 

allegations supporting his other claims of ineffective assistance of counsel 

that would, if true, entitle him to relief. Therefore, Orellana was not 

entitled to an evidentiary hearing on these claims. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

2 
(2005) (explaining that the court need not consider both prongs of the 

Stricklandtest if the petitioner makes an insufficient showing on either 

prong). Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not err by 

denying this claim. 

Third, Orellana contended that trial counsel was ineffective 

for attempting to quantify the reasonable doubt instruction. We conclude 

that counsel's comment did not lower the State's burden of proof and 

Orellana has failed to satisfy his burden of proving resulting prejudice. 

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

Fourth, Orellana contended that trial counsel was ineffective 

for failing to make a Confrontation Clause objection to a detective's 

reference to the out-of-court statement of the victim's parents that the 

victim was scared to return home and appellate counsel was ineffective for 

failing to raise this issue on appeal. Orellana also contended that 

appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the same claim with 

respect to the victim's aunt's testimony about the victim's out-of-court 

statements. The Confrontation Clause prohibits the admission of 

testimonial statements of witnesses who are unavailable and not subject 

to cross-examination. See Vega v. State,126 Nev. „ 236 P.3d 632, 

637 (2010); see also California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 161 (1970) ("[W]e 

note that none of our decisions interpreting the Confrontation Clause 

requires excluding the out-of-court statements of a witness who is 

available and testifying at trial."). The victim's parents and the victim 

herself all testified and were cross-examined by trial counsel. Accordingly, 

3 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

t`1-1.1Q17.,1_Wfit1311M1WIMW,7 45PlatV,WFAMPM141,4k3araw.--3,67---;•Y..-.2.7,2 ., ' ' 
arraguirre 

J. 

WHIM EiaNEMZ3MMTEN EZESWIMIE CIMA 

we conclude that trial and appellate counsel's performance was not 

deficient in this regard and the district court did not err by denying this 

claim. 

Having considered Orellana's contentions and concluded that 

he is not entitled to relief, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 414_,A, 

Hardesty 

cc: Hon. Michael Villani, District Judge 

Christopher R. Oram 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

4