Ingraham, Jr. (John) v. Warden

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: November 12, 2014
• Docket: 65259
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

When reviewing the district court's resolution of an ineffective-assistance claim, we give deference to the court's factual findings if they are supported by substantial evidence and not clearly wrong 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). Here, the district court conducted an evidentiary hearing and heard testimony from Ingraham, his trial and appellate counsel, and four additional witnesses who addressed issues pertaining to Ingraham's theory of self- defense and mitigation at sentencing. The district court found that Ingraham failed to demonstrate that trial counsel was deficient or prejudice. See 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)). The district court also determined that appellate counsel was not ineffective. See Kirksey, 112 Nev. at 998, 923 P.2d at 1113-14. We conclude that the district court did not err by rejecting Ingraham's ineffective-assistance claims, and we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

J. Hardesty

Douglas

SUPREME COURT Cherry a lWartAdb, , J.

OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1.947A eia> cc: Hon. Elliott A. Sattler, District Judge Karla K. Butko Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A en