are not belied by the record and, if true, would entitle him to relief.
Hargrove v. State, 100 Nev. 498, 502, 686 P.2d 222, 225 (1984).
First, Smith argues that the district court erred by not
conducting an evidentiary hearing and denying his claim that, prior to his
decision to represent himself, counsel was ineffective for failing to move to
suppress a photographic lineup. The district court denied this claim
because Smith could have moved to suppress the lineup once he began
representing himself and he was unable to fault prior counsel for his own
errors. Smith correctly asserts that because he assumed representation
the day before trial, any attempt to suppress the lineup would have been
untimely and the district court would have been within its discretion to
deny it on that basis. See EDCR 3.20(a); EDCR 3.28. However, because
Smith failed to demonstrate that the outcome at trial would have been
different even if the photographic lineup had been suppressed, we
conclude that the district court did not err by denying this claim without
conducting an evidentiary hearing. See Wyatt v. State, 86 Nev. 294, 298,
468 P.2d 338, 341 (1970) (affirming a decision of the district court if it
reaches the right result).
Second, Smith argues that the district court erred by denying
his claim that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to successfully
argue that the State violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and
that the violation caused him prejudice. The district court denied this
claim because appellate counsel argued that the State violated Brady and
addressed prejudice and Smith failed to demonstrate the manner that
counsel should have argued the claim which would have had a reasonable
probability of success on appeal. We conclude that Smith failed to
demonstrate that district court erred by denying this claim. See Mazzan V.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(o) 1947A
• 1,777,14;77
Warden, 116 Nev. 48, 67, 993 P.2d 25, 37 (2000) (summarizing the
components necessary to show a Brady violation).
Third, Smith argues that the district court erred by denying
his claim that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise trial
counsel's ineffectiveness on direct appeal. The district court denied this
claim because raising trial counsel's ineffectiveness on direct appeal would
have been inappropriate. See Feazell v. State, 111 Nev. 1446, 1449, 906
P.2d 727, 729 (1995). We conclude that the district court did not err by
denying this claim.
Having considered Smith's contentions and concluded that
they lack merit, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
J.
Douglas Saitta
cc: Hon. Doug Smith, District Judge
Law Offices of Martin Hart, LLC
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
3