Martinez (Reddy) v. State

Nevada Supreme Court

Martinez (Reddy) v. State

DecidedNovember 12, 2014

Docket65670

StatusUnpublished

This text of Martinez (Reddy) v. State (Martinez (Reddy) v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Martinez (Reddy) v. State, (Neb. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

appellant failed to demonstrate any detrimental error to cumulate. Our review of the record reveals that the district court's factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and are not clearly wrong, and appellant has not demonstrated that the district court erred as a matter of law. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984) (establishing two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel); Kirksey v. State, 112 Nev. 980, 987, 923 P.2d 1102, 1107 (1996) (adopting the test in Strickland); see also Means v. State, 120 Nev. 1001, 1012, 103 P.3d 25, 33 (2004) (petitioner must prove the facts underlying his claims of ineffective- assistance by a preponderance of the evidence). Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.'

Hardesty

Douglas r_ .4 j. t

cc: Hon. Carolyn Ellsworth, District Judge Nguyen & Lay Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

3-The fast track statement does not comply with the formatting requirements of NRAP 3C(h)(1) and NRAP 32(a)(4) because it is not paginated. We caution respondent's counsel that failure to comply with the applicable rules when filing briefs in this court may result in the imposition of sanctions. See NRAP 3C(n).

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A 7s0944

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

appellant failed to demonstrate any detrimental error to cumulate. Our review of the record reveals that the district court's factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and are not clearly wrong, and appellant has not demonstrated that the district court erred as a matter of law. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984) (establishing two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel); Kirksey v. State, 112 Nev. 980, 987, 923 P.2d 1102, 1107 (1996) (adopting the test in Strickland); see also Means v. State, 120 Nev. 1001, 1012, 103 P.3d 25, 33 (2004) (petitioner must prove the facts underlying his claims of ineffective- assistance by a preponderance of the evidence). Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.'