counsel testified at the evidentiary hearing that Howard wanted this
defense to be presented. See Ybarra v. State, 127 Nev., Adv. Op. 4, 247
P.3d 269, 276 (2011) (giving deference to the district court's credibility
determinations). The district court also noted that Howard was caught on
video entering the room and exiting with the property and therefore had
limited defenses available. Therefore, Howard fails to demonstrate that
the district court erred by denying this claim.
Second, Howard contends that the district court erred by
denying his claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue
that he did not have the requisite intent for burglary. The district court
denied this claim because counsel argued that Howard was not guilty of
burglary on a theory which incorporated this argument and his strategic
decision on which defense to present was entitled to deference. See
Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689; Lara v. State, 120 Nev. 177, 180, 87 P.3d 528,
530 (2004) (explaining that "trial counsel's strategic or tactical decisions
will be virtually unchallengeable absent extraordinary circumstances"
(internal quotation marks omitted)). The district court also noted that the
jury was properly instructed on the elements of burglary and the result of
trial would not have been different had counsel made this argument more
explicitly. Therefore, Howard fails to demonstrate that the district court
erred by denying this claim.'
'We decline to consider Howard's contention that the district court
erred by denying his claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to
request an instruction regarding trespass because it is not supported by
sufficient argument. See Maresca v. State, 103 Nev. 669, 673, 748 P.2d 3,
6 (1987).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A e
Third, Howard contends that the district court erred by
denying his claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to review
unedited surveillance footage. The district court denied this claim because
counsel testified that he reviewed the footage and concluded it was not
helpful. Howard has not provided the unedited footage on appeal and does
not explain how it would have helped his case or led to a different result at
trial. Therefore, he fails to demonstrate that the district court erred by
denying this claim.
Fourth, Howard contends that the district court erred by
denying his claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and
call certain witnesses to support his theory of defense. Howard does not
explain what information the witnesses would have provided or how their
testimony would have changed the result at trial. Therefore, he fails to
demonstrate that the district court erred by denying this claim.
Fifth, Howard contends that the district court erred by
denying his claim that trial counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to obtain
and review the recorded statement of Shameka McDonald, (2) waiving
objection to the State's failure to produce McDonald's statement, and (3)
failing to request a "Sanborn" instruction. Howard does not explain how
he was prejudiced by the failure to obtain the statement, particularly
given that counsel spoke with McDonald personally and concluded that
the information she possessed was more harmful than helpful. In
addition, Howard has not identified the instruction counsel should have
requested, let alone pointed to any law establishing that he was entitled to
such an instruction. Therefore, he fails to demonstrate that the district
court erred by denying this claim.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) I 947A
3
Having considered Howard's contentions and concluded they
lack merit, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2
‘,12e.A.S , C.J.
Hardesty
J.
424jter
Parraguirre
Lics21 J.
Douglas
cc: Hon. Susan Johnson, District Judge
Bush Law Group, LLc
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
2 Howard also contends that cumulative error warrants relief.
Because we have found no error, there are no errors to cumulate.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
0) 1947A e