preponderance of the evidence, Means v. State, 120 Nev. 1001, 1012, 103 

P.3d 25, 33 (2004). To warrant an evidentiary hearing, a petitioner must 

raise claims that are supported by specific factual allegations that are not 

belied by the record and, if true, would entitle him to relief. Hargrove v. 

State, 100 Nev. 498, 502-03, 686 P.2d 222, 225 (1984). 

First, appellant argues that his trial counsel was ineffective 

for failing to file a pretrial petition for a writ of habeas corpus arguing for 

dismissal of the charges due to delay of the arraignment. Appellant failed 

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

prejudiced. Counsel made an oral motion to dismiss based on the delay, 

which the court denied, and appellant fails to demonstrate that a 

competent attorney would have filed a petition after the court's denial of 

the oral motion. Moreover, If] allure to bring a defendant before a 

magistrate without unnecessary delay does not warrant reversal absent a 

showing of prejudice to the defendant's constitutional rights." Elvik v. 

State, 114 Nev. 883, 895, 965 P.2d 281, 289 (1998) (citing Huebner v. State, 

103 Nev. 29, 32, 731 P.2d 1330, 1333 (1987)). Appellant failed to 

demonstrate prejudice to his constitutional rights due to the delay. 

Accordingly, appellant failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability of a 

different outcome had counsel filed a pretrial petition arguing for 

dismissal based on delay of the arraignment. Therefore, the district court 

did not err in denying this claim without conducting an evidentiary 

hearing. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) I 947A 

Second, appellant argues that trial counsel was ineffective for 

failing to investigate and interview a woman who was alleged to have 

conspired with appellant to commit the robbery. Appellant fails to 

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

was prejudiced. Appellant speculates that the woman might have 

provided helpful testimony if she had been located, but bare claims are 

2 
SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

insufficient to demonstrate that a petitioner is entitled to relief. Hargrove, 

100 Nev. at 502-03, 686 P.2d at 225. Appellant fails to demonstrate a 

reasonable probability of a different outcome at trial had counsel 

investigated this potential witness. See Molina v. State, 120 Nev. 185, 

192, 87 P.3d 533, 538 (2004). Therefore, the district court did not err in 

denying this claim without conducting an evidentiary hearing. 

Third, appellant argues that his counsel was ineffective for 

failing to communicate with him, as appellant asserts counsel was not 

aware of the importance of the coconspirator and her potential testimony. 

Appellant fails to demonstrate that his trial counsel's performance was 

deficient or that he was prejudiced. Appellant only makes a bare claim 

that his counsel did not communicate with him and the trial transcript 

does not support appellant's claim that counsel was not aware of the 

coconspirator's contribution to appellant's version of events. In addition, 

as discussed previously, appellant makes only a bare allegation that the 

coconspirator would have provided helpful testimony, which is insufficient 

to demonstrate a reasonable probability of a different outcome had counsel 

had further discussions with appellant regarding that potential witness. 

Therefore, the district court did not err in denying this claim without 

conducting an evidentiary hearing. 

Next, appellant argues that the district court erred in denying 

his claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel without conducting 

an evidentiary hearing. To prove ineffective assistance of appellate 

counsel, a petitioner must demonstrate that counsel's performance was 

deficient in that it fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and 

resulting prejudice such that the omitted issue would have a reasonable 

probability of success on appeal. Kirksey v. State, 112 Nev. 980, 998, 923 

P.2d 1102, 1114 (1996). Both components of the inquiry must be shown. 

Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697. Appellate counsel is not required to raise 

3 

114,A 
SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

every non-frivolous issue on appeal. Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 751 

(1983). Rather, appellate counsel will be most effective when every 

conceivable issue is not raised on appeal. Ford v. State, 105 Nev. 850, 853, 

784 P.2d 951, 953 (1989). 

First, appellant argues that his appellate counsel was 

ineffective for failing to properly assert on appeal that he was prejudiced 

by pre-arraignment delay. Appellant fails to demonstrate that his 

counsel's performance was deficient or that he was prejudiced. As noted 

by appellant, counsel did raise this issue on direct appeal, but the claim 

was rejected by this court. Hampton v. State, Docket No. 49887 (October 

16, 2008). Further, as discussed on direct appeal, appellant's 

constitutional rights were not violated by the delay. See Sheriff v. 

Berman, 99 Nev. 102, 105-06, 659 P.2d 298, 300 (1983). Appellant fails to 

demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of a different outcome on appeal had 

counsel raised further arguments regarding this issue. Therefore, the 

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

evidentiary hearing. 

Second, appellant argues that his appellate counsel was 

ineffective for failing to assert there was insufficient evidence of 

conspiracy to commit robbery. Appellant fails to demonstrate that his 

counsel's performance was deficient or that he was prejudiced. Evidence 

presented at trial demonstrated that the alleged coconspirator watched 

the victim prior to the robbery, stopped her vehicle near appellant and 

waited while appellant robbed the victim at knifepoint, and then drove 

away with appellant. This was sufficient evidence that appellant and the 

alleged coconspirator coordinated their actions towards robbing the victim. 

See Thomas v. State, 114 Nev. 1127, 1143, 967 P.2d 1111, 1122 (1998) 

(concluding that a coordinated series of acts furthering the underlying 

offense is sufficient to infer the existence of an agreement, and thus is 

4 
/dGu. 

Hardesty 

Parraguirre Cherry 

sufficient evidence to convict a defendant of conspiracy). Therefore, the 

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

evidentiary hearing. 

Next, appellant argues that the errors of trial and appellate 

counsel cumulatively amount to ineffective assistance of counsel. As 

appellant fails to demonstrate deficiency or prejudice for any of his claims, 

he fails to demonstrate that cumulative errors amount to ineffective 

assistance of counse1. 2 

Having concluded appellant is not entitled to relief, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

cc: Hon. Michael Villani, District Judge 

Law Office of Betsy Allen 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

2Appellant asserts that the district court did not address this claim 

in its order. However, we conclude that the district court's order was 

sufficient to allow this court to review appellant's claim on appeal. 

5