IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
RICKIE LAMONT SLAUGHTER, No. 68532
Appellant,
vs.
THE STATE OF NEVADA,
Respondent.
FILED
JUL 1 3 2016
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is a pro se appeal from a district court order denying a
postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Eighth Judicial
District Court, Clark County; Douglas W. Herndon, Judge.
Appellant Rickie Lamont Slaughter contends that the district
court erred by denying his petition, which included claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel. To prove ineffective assistance of counsel, a
petitioner must demonstrate that counsel's performance was deficient in
that it fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and resulting
prejudice such that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's
errors, the outcome of the proceedings would have been different.
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984); Warden v. Lyons,
100 Nev. 430, 432-33, 683 P.2d 504, 505 (1984) (adopting the test in
Strickland). Both components of the inquiry must be shown. Strickland,
466 U.S. at 697. We give deference to the court's factual findings if
supported by substantial evidence and not clearly erroneous but review
the court's application of the law to those facts de novo. Lader v. Warden,
121 Nev. 682, 686, 120 P.3d 1164, 1166 (2005).
In his petition, Slaughter contended that trial counsel was
ineffective for failing to (1) elicit testimony from Detective Jesus Prieto,
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A 7.1171
t g 7 c-,
Officer Anthony Bailey, Officer Mark Hoyt, Craig Retke, and Destiny
Waddy, (2) adequately cross-examine the State's witnesses, (3) present
evidence regarding the timing of a 911 call, (4) discover impeachment
evidence regarding Jeff Arbuckle, (5) discover evidence that the State
provided witnesses with monetary compensation, and (6) suppress
evidence, and for eliciting testimony from Noyan Westbrook.' The district
court denied these claims without conducting an evidentiary hearing. We
conclude that the district court did not err. Although the district court's
reasoning regarding the deficiency component of some of Slaughter's
claims erroneously assumed disputed facts to be true, we agree with the
district court that an evidentiary hearing was not required under the
circumstances, see Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 248, 255, 71 .P.3d 503, 508
(2003) (recognizing that an evidentiary hearing is warranted where a
petitioner's claim is "supported by specific facts not belied by the record,
which if true, would entitle him to relief'), and that Slaughter failed to
demonstrate prejudice because the evidence against him was
overwhelming. Multiple eyewitnesses identified Slaughter at trial and in
a photographic lineup as one of the suspects and several identified him as
the shooter. Slaughter's girlfriend owned a vehicle which resembled that
described by the witnesses, and in it, law enforcement found two firearms
'Slaughter claimed that appellate counsel was ineffective for (1)
failing to raise a Batson claim and (2) challenge the State's failure to
preserve evidence. We conclude that the district court did not err by
denying these claims because Slaughter failed to demonstrate that they
had a reasonable probability of success on appeal. See Kirksey v. State,
112 Nev. 980, 998, 923 P.2d 1102, 1114 (1996) (applying Strickland to
appellate counsel).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A e>
consistent with those used in the crimes and ammunition consistent with
ballistic evidence recovered from the scene. In addition, the district court
found that Slaughter was depicted in surveillance footage using a victim's
stolen ATM card and that he made statements which indicated that he
was attempting to fabricate an alibi. We give deference to these findings.
See Lader, 121 Nev. at 686, 120 P.3d at 1166. Thus, even assuming that
counsel were deficient, Slaughter failed to demonstrate a reasonable
likelihood of a different result. 2 Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 3
Cherry
Douglas Gibbons
cc: Hon. Douglas W. Herndon. District Judge
Rickie Lamont Slaughter
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
2 To the extent appellant requested counsel, we conclude that the
district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to appoint counsel
See NRS 34.750(1).
3 We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in
proper person to the clerk of this court in this matter, and we conclude
that no relief based upon those submissions is warranted. To the extent
that appellant has attempted to present claims or facts in those
submissions which were not previously presented in the proceedings
below, we have declined to consider them in the first instance.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A