1102, 1107 (1996). Both components of the inquiry must be shown.
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 697 (1984).
First, appellant claimed that trial counsel failed to interview
two of the State's witnesses, failed to investigate appellant's alibi, and
failed to locate a woman observed on the surveillance video exiting from
Room 120. Appellant failed to demonstrate deficiency or prejudice as his
claim was bare and he failed to argue below what a more thorough
investigation would have revealed. See Molina v. State, 120 Nev. 185, 192,
87 P.3d 533, 538 (2004). Appellant accepted negotiations at the
preliminary hearing, thereby eliminating trial counsel's need to
investigate the case further. Appellant failed to provide any explanation
for why he entered a guilty plea if he believed he had an alibi. Given the
witnesses' identification and the surveillance video, appellant failed to
demonstrate a reasonable probability that he would not have entered a
guilty plea and would have insisted on going to trial had trial counsel
investigated his alibi. Therefore, we conclude that the district court did
not err in denying this claim.
Second, appellant claimed that his trial counsel was
ineffective for advising him to waive the preliminary hearing because the
State's evidence was weak and unreliable. Appellant failed to
demonstrate deficiency or prejudice. Appellant failed to demonstrate that
the State would not have been able to satisfy its burden of establishing
probable cause for the crimes alleged in the criminal complaint. See NRS
171.206. Appellant received a substantial benefit as he avoided the older-
victim enhancement, a charge of burglary, and potential habitual criminal
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
adjudication. Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not err in
denying this claim.
Third, appellant claimed that his trial counsel coerced his
guilty plea by telling him that he could spend the rest of his life in prison,
telling him that he would lose if he went to trial, telling him that he could
be part of an in-patient program and receive probation, and telling his
mother-in-law that he would get a sentence of 2 to 5 years. Appellant
failed to demonstrate deficiency or prejudice. Candid advice about the
consequences of a conviction and the strength of the State's case is not
deficient. Appellant was eligible for large habitual criminal treatment,
and thus, he faced a potential life sentence. In entering his plea, appellant
indicated that he was not promised anything not included in the guilty
plea agreement and he was not acting under duress or coercion.
Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying this
claim.
Fourth, appellant claimed that his trial counsel was ineffective
because he had a conflict of interest. Appellant claimed that his trial
counsel was unable to negotiate with the deputy district attorney because
of an alleged personal relationship between the two attorneys. Appellant
failed to demonstrate that his counsel's performance was deficient or that
he was prejudiced. Appellant negotiated a guilty plea prior to the
preliminary hearing and the record indicates that a different attorney
from the district attorney's office represented the State during the
proceedings in the justice court. Appellant failed to demonstrate that an
actual conflict of interest adversely affected the performance of his
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
counsel. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 692; Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335,
348 (1980); Leonard v. State, 117 Nev. 53, 63, 17 P.3d 397, 404 (2001).
Finally, appellant claimed that cumulative deficiencies in his
counsel's performance warranted relief. Because appellant failed to
demonstrate any deficiencies, appellant failed to demonstrate cumulative
error. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
)F4a , J
Douglas
J.
Saitta
cc: Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, District Judge
Willie James Lemons, Jr.
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A