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, Duke argues that the district court erred by denying his
claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate. Duke
claims that an investigation would have revealed that the owner of the
vehicle that he was driving when arrested had a long history of prior drug
convictions, and because Duke was arrested in the owner's neighborhood,
counsel could have argued that Duke was acting only as a transporter for
the owner. Duke claims that this theory could have been supported by
evidence that the owner was subsequently arrested on drug trafficking
charges. The district court conducted an evidentiary hearing and
concluded that Duke was not prejudiced because, even if counsel had
investigated further, the investigation would not have revealed any
information that would have changed the result at trial. The district court
also concluded that because Duke testified at the evidentiary hearing that
he was not acting as a transporter for the vehicle owner and he told
counsel the same, counsel was not ineffective for failing to investigate a
defense contradictory to his client's story. We conclude that the district
court did not err by denying this claim.
Second, Duke argues that the district court erred by denying
his claim that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that his
dual convictions for transportation of a controlled substance and
trafficking in a controlled substance violated double jeopardy. The district
court determined that this claim lacked merit. Because neither statute
expressly allows for or prohibits multiple convictions, see NRS 453.321,
NRS 453.3385, and each offense, as charged, requires proof of an element
that the other does not, the Double Jeopardy Clause is not implicated. See
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
_
Jackson v. State, 128 Nev. „ P.3d (2012) (Adv. Op. No.
55, December 6, 2012). Therefore, appellate counsel was not deficient and
the district court did not err by denying this claim.
Third, Duke argues that the district court erred by denying his
petition because counsels' ineffectiveness denied him equal protection.
Because trial and appellate counsel were not ineffective, we conclude this
claim is without merit.
Having considered Duke's contentions and concluded that they
lack merit, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
ibbons
J.
1RDIA-21
Douglas Saitta
cc: Hon. Elissa F. Cadish, District Judge
Matthew D. Carling
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A .;