(lb 1447A 

4%. • -",:w.-154:a04.;;—z 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

RAHIM MUHAMMAD, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

ISIDRO BACA, WARDEN; AND THE 

STATE OF NEVADA, 

Res s ondents. 

No 81367 

FILE 

DEC 1 1 2021 

ELIZABE A. BROWN 

CLERK OF jPREPECOURT 

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE DEPU CLERK 

This is an appeal from a district court order denying a 

postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Second Judicial District 

Court, Washoe County; Kathleen M. Drakulich, Judge. Appellant Rahim 

Muhammad argues that the district court erred in denying his petition as 

procedurally barred. 

Muhammad was convicted pursuant to a guilty plea. In his 

petition for postconviction habeas relief, Muhammad alleged that counsel 

provided ineffective assistance during the sentencing hearing. Muhammad 

specifically argued that counsel should have provided letters of community 

support and evidence showing his college attendance and public service. 

The district court concluded that the petition was barred under NRS 

34.810(1)(a) because Muhammad pleaded guilty and the petition was "not 

based upon an allegation that the plea was involuntarily or unknowingly 

entered or that the plea was entered without effective assistance of counsel." 

In rejecting Muhammad's petition, the district court did not have the benefit 

of this court's recent decision in Gonzales v. State, 137 Nev., Adv. Op. 40, 

492 P.3d 556, 562 (2021). In Gonzales, we clarified that a petitioner who 

pleaded guilty may allege that he or she received ineffective assistance of 

counsel at sentencing because that claim could not have been raised before 

entering the plea and barring such a claim would "violate the spirit of our 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 
habeas statute and the public policy of this state." Id. at 562. Accordingly, 

the district court erred in concluding that NRS 34.810(1)(a) barred 

Muhammad's petition. 

Nevertheless, the district court found that the specific pieces of 

evidence that Muhammad asserted had not been presented conveyed the 

same information as the sentencing statement and exhibits that counsel 

had presented to the sentencing court. Substantial evidence supports this 

finding, which is not clearly wrong. See Lader v. Warden, 121 Nev. 682, 

686, 120 P.3d 1164, 1166 (2005) (deferring to the district court's factual 

findings that are supported by substantial evidence and not clearly wrong, 

but reviewing its application of the law to those facts de novo). In each of 

Muhammad's claims, he alleges that the omission of the additional evidence 

prejudiced him. As that mitigation evidence was cumulative, however, 

Muhammad has not shown that its presentation would have led to a 

reasonable probability of a different outcome and thus has not shown 

prejudice. Strickland v. Wa.shington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 696-97 (1984) 

(stating showings required for ineffective assistance of counsel and for its 

prejudice component and providing that the claim fails if both components 

are not shown); Warden v. Lyons, 100 Nev. 430, 432-33, 683 P.2d 504, 505 

(1984) (adopting the test in Strickland). Therefore, the district court 

reached the correct outcome in denying Muhammad's petition without an 

evidentiary hearing. See Nika v. State, 124 Nev. 1272, 1300-01, 198 P.3d 

839, 858 (2008) (providing that an evidentiary hearing is not warranted 

where a postconviction habeas petition's factual allegations are "belied or 

repelled by the record"); Wyatt v. State, 86 Nev. 294, 298, 468 P.2d 338, 340 

(1970) ("If a judgment or order of a trial court reaches the right result, 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NevaDA 

2 

101 19.17A 
although it is based on an incorrect ground, the judgment or order will be 

affirmed on appeal.").1 

Having concluded that relief is not warranted, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.2 

 C.J. 

Hardesty 

Herndon 

cc: Hon. Kathleen M. Drakulich, District Judge 

Karla K. Butko 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

'Insofar as Muhammad argues that counsel should have sought to 

correct the PSI report to reflect that the gun used was a toy gun and should 

have challenged systemic racial bias in the judicial system, and that 

appellate counsel was ineffective for advising him to dismiss his direct 

appeal, these claims were not raised in the pro se or supplemental habeas 

petitions filed below. We decline to address them for the first time on 

appeal. See Davis v. State, 107 Nev. 600, 606, 817 P.2d 1169, 1173 (1991), 

overruled on other grounds by Means v. State, 120 Nev. 1001, 1012-13, 103 

P.3d 25, 33 (2004). 

2The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the 

decision of this matter under a general order of assignment. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

3 

103 1947A 46151. 

• Pitt, r.7..,"*=i- 

"17114719C1r7L"