Sunrhodes (Ernest) v. State

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