supported by specific factual allegations that are not belied by the record
and, if true, would entitle her to relief. Hargrove v. State, 100 Nev. 498,
502-03, 686 P.2d 222, 225 (1984).
First, West argues that the district court erred in denying her
claim that counsel was ineffective for conceding her guilt to the count
alleging unauthorized signing of a credit card transaction document. We
disagree. At trial, witnesses testified that they saw West sign the credit
card transaction document. Further, the State introduced the transaction
document signed by West and surveillance video showing her signing the
document. In addition, the owner of the credit account testified that she
had not given West permission to sign the document. Considering this
evidence, West has failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability of a
different outcome had counsel not conceded her guilt during opening
argument as there was overwhelming evidence of her guilt. Therefore, the
district court did not err in denying this claim without conducting an
evidentiary hearing.
Second, West argues that the district court erred in denying
her claim that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the
imposition of the large habitual sentence on West as her offense was
nonviolent. We disagree. Because the habitual criminal statute makes no
special allowance for nonviolent crimes or remoteness of the prior
convictions as these are merely considerations within the discretion of the
district court, Arajakis v. State, 108 Nev. 976, 983, 843 P.2d 800, 805
(1992), appellant failed to demonstrate reasonable counsel would have
argued that the district court erred for those reasons. The district court
stated that sentencing West as a habitual criminal was appropriate due to
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
West's extensive criminal activity. Therefore, the district court did not err
in denying this claim.
Third, West asserts that the district court erred in summarily
denying the claims raised in her proper person petition without holding an
evidentiary hearing. We conclude that this argument lacks merit. Other
than asserting that the district court failed to hold an evidentiary hearing
on these claims, West does not present any argument on appeal
demonstrating that the district court erred in this regard. See Maresca v.
State, 103 Nev. 669, 673, 748 P.2d 3, 6 (1987) ("It is appellant's
responsibility to present relevant authority and cogent argument.").
Having considered West's contentions and concluded that they
lack merit, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
J.
Hardesty
J.
Parraguirre
cc: Hon. Douglas W. Herndon, District Judge
Matthew D. Carling
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
3