review the court's application of the law to those facts de novo. Lacier v.
Warden, 121 Nev. 682, 686, 120 P.3d 1164, 1166 (2005).
First, appellant argues that trial counsel was ineffective for
failing to adequately cross-examine the victim. Appellant contends that
counsel was unreasonable for choosing to limit cross-examination of the
victim in order to prevent the State from presenting evidence about the
victim's prior consistent statements, Appellant has failed to demonstrate
that trial counsel's performance was deficient. The record shows that trial
counsel strategically chose to limit her cross-examination of the victim so
that the State would not be able to call witnesses to rehabilitate the victim
and buttress her credibility. Tactical decisions of counsel are virtually
unchallengeable absent extraordinary circumstances and appellant failed
to demonstrate any such circumstances here. See Ford v. State, 105 Nev.
850, 853, 784 P.2d 951, 953 (1989).
Further, appellant fails to demonstrate that he was prejudiced
by trial counsel's decision to limit cross-examination of the victim. At
trial, the victim, who is appellant's stepdaughter, testified that appellant
sexually assaulted her in a hotel room while they were in Las Vegas for a
conference. The victim further testified that she told her mother about the
assault several months later but no action was taken, and the victim
waited approximately two and a half years before disclosing the assault to
her sister and grandmother, who then reported the incident to the police.
Trial counsel cross-examined the victim about the length of time she
waited before reporting the incident, and counsel called defense witnesses
to testify that appellant was never alone in a hotel room with the victim
and that the sexual assault could not have happened. While appellant
contends that counsel should have cross-examined the victim about her
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A Le
reasons for failing to disclose earlier and her behavior after the sexual
assault, the victim touched on these issues during direct examination, and
appellant fails to demonstrate a reasonable probability of a different
outcome at trial had counsel cross-examined the victim about them.
Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying this
claim.
Second, appellant argues that trial counsel was ineffective for
failing to investigate the victim. Appellant did not raise this claim in his
post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and we decline to
address it in the first instance. 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 P.3d 25, 33 (2004). Therefore, we conclude that
the district court did not err in denying the petition, and we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.'
J.
Hardesty
J.
'Appellant's opening brief does not comply with the Nevada Rules of
Appellate Procedure because it does not contain one-inch margins on all
four sides and the footnotes are not in the same font size as the body of the
brief. See NRAP 32(a)(4), (5). We caution counsel that future failure to
comply with the rules of this court when filing briefs may result in the
imposition of sanctions.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
cc: Hon. David B. Barker, District Judge
Law Office of Betsy Allen
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A MTSMF