First, appellant argues that counsel was ineffective for
stipulating to the admission of the interview and test results from
polygraph examinations of the victim and appellant. Appellant's claim
fails to demonstrate deficiency or prejudice. Appellant fails to cite to
authority in support of his claim that the admission of the evidence
violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. See
Maresca v. State, 103 Nev. 669, 673, 748 P.2d 3, 6 (1987) ("It is appellant's
responsibility to present relevant authority and cogent argument; issues
not so presented need not be addressed by this court."). Moreover,
appellant's failure to include complete trial transcripts in his appendix
prevents this court from reviewing the district court's conclusion that
appellant failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability of a different
outcome at trial but for counsel's alleged deficient performance. We
therefore conclude that the district court did not err in denying this claim
without an evidentiary hearing.
Second, appellant argues that counsel was ineffective for
failing to adequately investigate the victim's and appellant's levels of
intoxication and provide that information to his expert witness.
Appellant's bare claim fails to demonstrate prejudice because he does not
indicate what a more thorough investigation would have revealed, see
Molina v. State, 120 Nev. 185, 192, 87 P.3d 533, 538 (2004), and his failure
to provide complete trial transcripts precludes our review of the district
court's conclusion that appellant failed to demonstrate prejudice. We
therefore conclude that the district court did not err in denying this claim
without an evidentiary hearing.
Third, appellant argues that counsel was ineffective for
stipulating to the admission of evidence proving that appellant fled the
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) I947A
jurisdiction to avoid trial. Appellant fails to demonstrate deficiency or
prejudice. Appellant neither disputes his flight nor alleges that the State
might not have proven it absent the stipulation. Appellant thus fails to
demonstrate a reasonable probability of a different outcome absent the
stipulation. We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in
denying this claim without an evidentiary hearing.
Finally, appellant argues that counsel was ineffective for
failing to inform him of an earlier, more favorable guilty-plea offer.
Because this claim was not raised before the court below, we decline to
consider it on appeal in the first instance. See Davis v. State, 107 Nev.
600, 606, 817 P.2d 1169, 1173 (1991). Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
p oi.otas6
Parraguirr e
tt ,
9 1(as , J.
Douglas
cc: Hon. Robert W. Lane, District Judge
David H. Neely, III
Nye County District Attorney
Nye County Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A 483(o