SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

LASHANA MONIQUE HAYVVARD, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

Respondent. 

No. 67616 

FILED 

MAY 0 9 2016 

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE 

TRACE K. LINDEMAN 

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 

BY 

DEPUTY CLERK 

This is a pro se appeal from a district court order denying 

appellant Lashana Monique Hayward's postconviction petition for a writ 

of habeas corpus." Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Douglas 

W. Herndon, Judge. 

Hayward contended that trial counsel was ineffective for 

failing to coherently argue that her trial should be severed from that of 

her codefendant. Hayward also contended that counsel was ineffective on 

appeal for failing to support her severance issue with cogent argument 

and legal authority. The district court concluded that Hayward failed to 

demonstrate that counsel was ineffective. We agree. See Lader v. 

Warden, 121 Nev. 682, 686, 120 P.3d 1164, 1166 (2005) (explaining that 

we give deference to the court's factual findings but review the court's 

application of the law to those facts de novo). Counsel argued at trial and 

on appeal that a severance was warranted, and although Hayward 

asserted that counsel's arguments were not compelling, she failed to 

demonstrate that a reasonable attorney would have made different 

arguments or that the result of trial or appeal would have been different 

'Hayward was represented by counsel in the postconviction 

proceeding below. 

(0) 1947A .eto - 1111-117 
/J4,t X.44-c 

Hardesty 

, J. 

Saitta 

2 

had counsel done so. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 

(1984) (holding that a petitioner must demonstrate that counsel's 

performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and a 

reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, the outcome of the 

proceedings would have been different); Warden v. Lyons, 100 Nev. 430, 

432-33, 683 P.2d 504, 505 (1984) (applying Strickland to trial counsel); 

Kirksey v. State, 112 Nev. 980, 998, 923 P.2d 1102, 1114 (1996) (applying 

Strickland to appellate counsel). 

Next, Hayward contended that the trial court prejudiced her 

by declining to consider whether counsel was effective at trial before 

allowing said counsel to represent her on appeal from her judgment of 

conviction. The district court concluded that this claim lacked merit. We 

agree. If counsel was ineffective, the appropriate mechanism to challenge 

her performance was a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus, 

such as the petition discussed herein. See Gibbons v. State, 97 Nev. 520, 

523, 634 P.2d 1214, 1216 (1981) ("[T]he more appropriate vehicle for 

presenting a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is through postconviction relief."). Yet, other than the issue discussed above, Hayward 

failed to identify any other errors counsel allegedly committed. Therefore, 

no relief was warranted on this claim. 

Having considered Hayward's contentions and concluded they 

lack merit, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 
cc: Hon. Douglas W. Herndon, District Judge 

Lashana Monique Hayward 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) I947A