Opinion ID: 1174630
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: issues raised by shuman

Text: Shuman requested and received permission to file in proper person supplemental briefs, in which he raised the remaining issues upon which he seeks reversal. A. The Effect of Prison Clothes Worn at Trial. Shuman wore his prison garb during his trial. He claims that as a result he was prejudiced in his right to a presumption of innocence. He was not prejudiced, for his status as a prisoner was known to the jury. As the court said in United States ex rel. Stahl v. Henderson, 472 F.2d 556, 557 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 971, 93 S.Ct. 2166, 36 L.Ed.2d 694 (1973), where the defendant, charged with killing a fellow inmate, was tried in prison clothes: No prejudice can result from seeing that which is already known. Quoted in Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 507, 96 S.Ct. 1691, 48 L.Ed.2d 126 (1976). B. The Discharge of Counsel's Duties. Shuman contends he was denied his sixth amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. The standard by which such a claim may be tested is whether the effectiveness of counsel was such as to reduce the trial to a sham, a farce, or a pretense. Bean v. State, 86 Nev. 80, 465 P.2d 133, cert. denied, 400 U.S. 844, 91 S.Ct. 89, 27 L.Ed.2d 81 (1970). He asserts that his counsel failed to call witnesses who would have placed Shuman away from the scene of the crime and near a television set in another area when Bejarno was set on fire. (His counsel did present several witnesses who testified that Shuman was near the television set sometime before the fire.) There is a presumption that counsel adequately discharged his duties, and that presumption can be overcome only by strong and convincing proof to the contrary. Smithart v. State, 86 Nev. 925, 478 P.2d 576 (1970). A reading of the record reveals that counsel properly discharged his duties. Such was the ruling of the trial judge in denying Shuman's motion to substitute counsel during his trial: [I]t is my personal feeling that Mr. Aimar [Shuman's counsel] is doing an excellent job in protecting the rights of the defendant during the prosecution's case ... Mr. Aimar is doing an excellent job and he is going to continue to do so. We agree. C. Shuman's Guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. Shuman also complains that insufficient evidence was presented to the jury to support his conviction of capital murder. Since we have upheld the admissibility of Bejarno's dying declarations, it would serve no purpose to specify the remaining evidence supporting the verdict. Suffice it to say that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support each and every material allegation of the crime and that in such a case the judgment of conviction may not be disturbed on appeal. Wills v. State, 93 Nev. 443, 566 P.2d 1138 (1977). D. Shuman's Representation by Counsel at Prior Proceeding. Finally, Shuman seeks reversal because, he claims, the record does not show that he was represented by counsel when he was convicted of the murder for which he is presently serving a sentence of life without possibility of parole, citing Burgett v. Texas, 389 U.S. 109, 88 S.Ct. 258, 19 L.Ed.2d 319 (1967). Burgett is inapposite. There, documents admitted into evidence indicated that the defendant was not represented by counsel. The court in Burgett said: In this case the certified records of the Tennessee conviction on their face raise a presumption that petitioner was denied his right to counsel in the Tennessee proceeding ... Id. at 114, 88 S.Ct. at 261. In the case at hand, no such presumption exists, as the evidence offered by the State was an abstract of judgment showing that Shuman was represented by counsel at the time of imposition of sentence. There was no suggestion that Shuman was not represented by counsel at every critical stage of the prior proceeding. Moreover, Shuman failed to object to this evidence at the time of its admission. This court has held repeatedly that failure to object at trial precludes raising the issue on appeal. See, e.g., Allen v. State, 91 Nev. 78, 530 P.2d 1195 (1975). Affirmed. [4] BATJER, C.J., and THOMPSON and GUNDERSON, JJ., concur.