parental rights termination case was not complex, as the case involved
consideration of appellant's contacts with the child and payment of
support and whether termination was in the child's best interest.
Appellant did not argue that expert testimony was necessary in this
matter. Appellant does not point to any reason why he would have been
unable to represent himself, and he does not point to any risk of an
erroneous decision without counsel. Thus, because appellant was not
constitutionally entitled to counsel, his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel
claim fails. Id. at 386, 115 P.3d at 227. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
Hardesty
'4 03,7
9 4
Douglas
Cherry
Chu.
cc: Hon. Mathew Harter, District Judge
Alan J. Butte11 & Associates
Rocheleau Law Group/Right Lawyers
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A P4Eto