Ibold (Randy) v. State

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: November 12, 2014
• Docket: 65408
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

his proceedings." See generally Means v. State, 120 Nev. 1001, 1012, 103 P.3d 25, 33 (2004) (holding that a petitioner has the burden of establishing facts underlying his claims by a preponderance of the evidence). The district court also determined that Ibold failed to demonstrate that counsel's representation was deficient and prejudice. See Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58-59 (1985); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694 (1984); Kirksey v. State, 112 Nev. 980, 987, 923 P.2d 1102, 1107 (1996); see also Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 131 S. Ct. 1388, 1408 (2011) ("Surmounting Strickland's high bar is never an easy task." (quotation marks omitted) (alteration omitted)). We conclude that the district court did not err by rejecting Ibold's ineffective-assistance claim. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2

ca-c; J. Hardesty

Douglas

J.

2 Thefast track statement does not comply with NRAP 3C(h)(1) and NRAP 32(a)(4) because the text in the body of the briefs is not double- spaced. Counsel for Ibold is cautioned that the failure to comply with the briefing requirements in the future may result in the imposition of sanctions. See NRAP 3C(n).

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A ce: cc: Chief Judge, The Tenth Judicial District Hon. Robert E. Estes, Senior Judge The Law Office of Jacob N. Sommer Churchill County District Attorney/Fallon Attorney General/Carson City Churchill County Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A (e144