Opinion ID: 2512660
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Lesser-related instruction on grand larceny of a motor vehicle

Text: Nika contends that the district court improperly dismissed his claim that trial counsel were ineffective for failing to pursue a lesser-related offense instruction on grand larceny of a motor vehicle. Nika appears to assert that because the State argued that his motive for killing Smith was to steal Smith's vehicle, he was entitled, under Hillis v. State, [87] to a lesser-related offense instruction on grand larceny of a motor vehicle because that offense was incidental to the charged offensefirst-degree murder. In Hillis, this court considered whether a procuring agent instruction was required where the defendant was charged with trafficking under the possession provision of NES 453.3395 rather than the sales provision of that statute. [88] The premise of a procuring agent is that [i]f a person acting solely as an agent of the buyer is not a seller, neither does he possess the controlled substance for the purpose of selling it. [89] This court reasoned that [e]ven when possession for sale is not specifically alleged, the [procuring agent] instruction may be required where possession was clearly incidental to a contemplated sales transaction initiated by an informant. [90] Noting that [t]he entire operation in this case centered on a sale, this court concluded that the procuring agent instruction should have been given but the failure to do so was harmless error. [91] Here, we conclude that grand larceny of a vehicle is not closely related, or incidental as contemplated by Hillis, to first-degree murder under the theory advanced in Nika's petition. Consequently, trial counsel had no reason to pursue a lesser-related instruction on grand larceny of a motor vehicle. Because Nika failed to show deficient performance or prejudice, we conclude that the district court did not err by summarily dismissing this claim.