IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
EFRAIN CHAVARIN-ARREOLA, No. 59196
Appellant,
vs.
THE STATE OF NEVADA, FILED
Respondent.
APR 0 9 2013
TRACE K. LINDEMAN
MTN,k=fIIT
r
IV
BY
DEPUTY CLERK
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is an appeal from a district court order denying appellant
Efrain Chavarin-Arreola's post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas
corpus. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Kenneth C. Cory,
Judge.
Chavarin-Arreola contends that the district court erred by
denying his petition without conducting an evidentiary hearing and by
denying his claims that counsel was ineffective for failing to (1) investigate
and discover information relating to the victim's mental/emotional state
and her appearance for trial and (2) file a motion for a psychological
examination of the victim. When reviewing the district court's resolution
of an ineffective-assistance claim, we give deference to the court's factual
findings if they are supported by substantial evidence and not clearly
wrong 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).
Here, although Chavarin-Arreola requested an evidentiary
hearing in his briefing, during the hearing on the petition, his counsel
informed the court that he wished to submit the matter and did not
indicate that he desired to call any witnesses. In its order denying the
petition, the district court determined that Chavarrin-Arreola failed to
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A
/3 - /0390
demonstrate that counsel's performance was deficient and/or prejudice.
We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion by not
conducting an evidentiary hearing and Chavarrin-Arreola fails to
demonstrate that the district court erred by denying his claims. See
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 694-96 (1984); Abbott v.
State, 122 Nev. 715, 724, 727, 138 P.3d 462, 468, 470 (2006); Warden v.
Lyons, 100 Nev. 430, 432-33, 683 P.2d 504, 505 (1984). 1 Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2
Pairaguirre 1/4,) Cherry
1 Inrelation to his claim that counsel failed to investigate the
victim's mental/emotional state, for the first time on appeal Chavarin-
Arreola asserts that an investigation could have uncovered the fact that
police "coerced" the victim's testimony. This assertion was not considered
by the district court in relation to this claim and we decline to consider it
on appeal. See Davis v. State, 107 Nev. 600, 606, 817 P.2d 1169, 1173
(1991), overruled on other grounds by Means v. State, 120 Nev. 1001,
1012-13, 103 13.3d 25, 33 (2004).
2 Although we filed the fast track statement submitted by Chavarin-
Arreola, it fails to comply with the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure
because it does not contain 1-inch margins on all four sides. See NRAP
3C(h)(1); NRAP 32(a)(4). Counsel for Chavarin-Arreola, James Oronoz, is
cautioned that the failure to comply with all applicable rules in the future
may result in the imposition of sanctions. See NRAP 3C(n); Smith v.
Emery, 109 Nev. 737, 743, 856 P.2d 1386, 1390 (1993).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
cc: Hon. Kenneth C. Cory, District Judge
Oronoz & Ericsson
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A .141.4D