Vegas. La11, however, has not provided this court with the 9-1-1 

recordings or a transcript of the statements made by those witnesses and 

merely alleges that "several 9-1-1 callers stated that a man without a shirt 

was in the street with a gun." Furthermore, La11's counsel told the district 

court during trial that he "attempted to canvass the neighborhood" and 

talk to witnesses "to verify certain things that were said on 9-1-1" and 

"nobody saw anything, nobody heard anything" and "it appears those 

people are unavailable." Finally, the only specific factual allegation made 

in La11's petition with regard to this claim is that "there is no reason to 

think that [the trial testimony of the 9-1-1 callers heard on the recording] 

would have been any different from the statements they made to the 9-1-1 

operator." According to the State, the recorded statements were played for 

the jury and emphasized during closing arguments. La11 does not contest 

this claim. Thus, no prejudice resulted from the witnesses' failure to 

testify in court because the witnesses' in-court testimony would not have 

been "any different" and would have been cumulative of the recorded 

statements. We conclude that the district court did not err by denying this 

ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim without an evidentiary hearing. 

Second, La11 contends that trial counsel was ineffective for 

failing to file a motion to dismiss his mayhem or battery-with-substantialbodily-harm convictions for violating the Double Jeopardy Clause of the 

United States Constitution. The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth 

Amendment prohibits multiple punishments for the same offense. See 

Jackson v. State, 128 Nev. „ 291 P.3d 1274, 1278 (2012), cert. 

denied, U .S. , 134 S. Ct. 56, and U .S. , 134 S. Ct. 385 (2013). 

To determine whether two statutes punish the same offense, this court 

looks to the Blockb urger test. See Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) I907A e 
299 (1932). "The Blockburger test 'inquires whether each offense contains 

an element not contained in the other; if not, they are the 'same offence' 

and double jeopardy bars additional punishment and successive 

prosecution." Jackson, 128 Nev. at , 291 P.3d at 1278 (quoting United 

States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 696 (1993)). Here, mayhem and battery 

with substantial bodily harm both require evidence that the defendant 

committed (1) an unlawful act (2) which permanently disfigures a member 

of the human body or otherwise renders it useless. See NRS 0.060 

(defining substantial bodily harm); NRS 200.280; NRS 200.300; NRS 

200.481(1)(a). Although MRS 200.280, the mayhem statute, does not 

specifically require the use of force or violence, we find it difficult to 

envision a scenario in which a member of the human body is permanently 

disfigured by an unlawful act that does not require the use of force. 

Regardless, mayhem and battery with substantial bodily harm constitute 

the same offense with respect to the Double Jeopardy Clause because 

mayhem does not contain an element not contained in battery with 

substantial bodily harm. See also Jackson, 128 Nev. at n.8, 291 P.3d 

at 1282 n.8 ("[T]he Legislature authorized conviction of mayhem or 

battery causing substantial bodily harm, but not both."). 

The State contends that even if these two statutes constitute 

the same offense for the purpose of double jeopardy, the three bullets Lall 

fired at the victim were separate and distinct acts that may each be 

punished individually without offending the Double Jeopardy Clause and 

that Lall was only convicted of two counts of battery with substantial 

bodily harm and one count of mayhem for the three acts. The amended 

information, however, provides no such assurances. The mayhem charge 

states that Lall committed the offense by shooting into the victim's right 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) I 947* 
Douglas ie 

leg with a shotgun. The battery charge states that La11 committed the 

offense by shooting at the body of the victim resulting in substantial bodily 

harm. There is no indication in the amended information that these two 

offenses involved different bullets, times, or locations. Therefore, we 

cannot say that the jury's guilty verdict correlated each offense to three 

separate acts and that the district court did not punish La11 twice for the 

same offense. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court erred by 

denying La11's petition because it should have determined during an 

evidentiary hearing whether La11's trial counsel's performance fell below 

an objective standard of reasonableness for failing to contest La11's 

conviction for both mayhem and battery with substantial bodily harm 

under the Double Jeopardy Clause and, if so, whether this deficient 

performance resulted in prejudice. We therefore 

ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND 

REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with 

this order. 

,J. 

Hardesty 

cc: Hon. Carolyn Ellsworth, District Judge 

Law Office of Betsy Allen 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 4 

(0) 1947A