must demonstrate the underlying facts by a preponderance of the
evidence, Means v. State, 120 Nev. 1001, 1012, 103 P.3d 25, 33 (2004). We
give deference to the district court's factual findings regarding ineffective
assistance of counsel but review the court's application of the law to those
facts de novo. Lader v. Warden, 121 Nev. 682, 686, 120 P.3d 1164, 1166
(2005).
First, appellant claimed that counsel was ineffective for failing
to investigate other sources of the victims' physical trauma or that the
victims' parents were motivated to fabricate the allegations by a desire to
steal from appellant. Appellant failed to demonstrate deficiency or
prejudice. The district court found that appellant did not present evidence
that the victims' parents stole from appellant, that the allegations were
fabricated, or that the trauma was caused by anything other than
appellant assaulting the victims, and it concluded that appellant thus
failed to demonstrate deficiency. The district court further found that
appellant would only "possibly" have wanted to go to trial given the
evidence adduced at the evidentiary hearing and wanted to go to trial now
only because of his fiancee's poor health, and it concluded that appellant
thus failed to demonstrate prejudice. The district court's conclusion is
supported by its factual findings, which in turn are supported by the
record. We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in
denying this claim.
Second, appellant claimed that counsel was ineffective because
appellant was on psychotropic medication at the time of his guilty plea,
rendering it invalid. Appellant failed to demonstrate deficiency or
prejudice. The district court found that appellant's medication did not
interfere with his understanding of his guilty plea, trial counsel had no
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
1111
reason to doubt appellant's competency at the guilty plea, appellant
presented no evidence that he was incompetent, and appellant admitted in
his own words to assaulting the victims, and it concluded that appellant
thus failed to demonstrate deficiency or prejudice. The district court's
conclusion is supported by its factual findings, which in turn are
supported by the record. We therefore conclude that the district court did
not err in denying this claim.
For the foregoing reasons, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2
Douglas Saitta
2 We note that appellant also claimed below that counsel was
ineffective for failing to conduct a trustworthiness hearing as to the child
victims, for not moving to suppress appellant's statements to the police,
and for telling appellant that he could not appeal because he pleaded
guilty. Appellant presented no evidence to support these claims as he
abandoned them at the start of his evidentiary hearing, and we therefore
do not consider them on appeal.
We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in
proper person to the clerk of this court in this matter, and we conclude
that no relief based upon those submissions is warranted. To the extent
that appellant has attempted to present claims or facts in those
submissions which were not previously presented in the proceedings
below, we have declined to consider them in the first instance.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
cc: Hon. Patrick Flanagan, District Judge
Gilbert White
Attorney General/Carson City
Washoe County District Attorney
Washoe District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A 4E44>
ER