by specific factual allegations that, if true and not repelled by the record,
would entitle him to relief. Hargrove v. State, 100 Nev. 498, 502, 686 P.2d
222, 225 (1984).
First, appellant claimed that counsel was ineffective for failing
to investigate, call an expert witness to rebut, and object to the testimony
of the State's witness that wires had been cut from the utility pull box
where a photograph of the pull box allegedly did not show any cut wires.
Appellant failed to demonstrate deficiency or prejudice. Appellant did not
state on what grounds counsel could have objected to the witness's
testimony. Further, even if one of the three photographs of the pull box
admitted at trial did not show cut wires, appellant was silent as to what
the other two depicted and the State's witness testified that the street
light was inoperative because the wires had been cut. Appellant thus
failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability of a different outcome at
trial had counsel challenged the witness's testimony regarding what the
photograph depicted. We therefore conclude that the district court did not
err in denying this claim.
Second, appellant claimed that counsel was ineffective for
failing to challenge the dollar amount of the damage appellant caused,
because had counsel done so, appellant may have been convicted only of a
misdemeanor instead of a felony. Appellant failed to demonstrate
deficiency or prejudice. Appellant was charged with cutting wires from
two utility pull boxes, and the State's witness estimated the total damage
from the two acts to be $1,960. Appellant, who was convicted of damaging
one of the pull boxes, failed to demonstrate that the amount of damage for
the single pull box would be below the $500 felony threshold. See NRS
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A 4(11Z1)-4
202.582(2). We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in
denying this claim.
Finally, appellant claimed that counsel was ineffective• for
failing to challenge the restitution amount of $10,346, which was clearly
for damage to multiple locations but where appellant was convicted of
damaging only one location. Appellant's claim was repelled by the record
as counsel did object to the restitution amount. However, appellant stated
that he did not want to delay the sentencing hearing and, against the
advice of counsel, stipulated to the $10,346 restitution amount. We
therefore conclude that the district court did not err in denying this claim.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that appellant's claims
were without merit, and we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
J.
Hardesty
1D-o L9(M J.
Douglas
J.
cc: Hon. Valorie J. Vega, District Judge
David Michael Cotner
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A