Padilla (Raymundo) v. State

Nevada Supreme Court

Padilla (Raymundo) v. State

DecidedApril 10, 2014

Docket63318

StatusUnpublished

This text of Padilla (Raymundo) v. State (Padilla (Raymundo) 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

Padilla (Raymundo) v. State, (Neb. 2014).

Pincite

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. Lacier v. Warden, 121 Nev. 682, 686, 120 P.3d 1164, 1166 (2005). Here, the district court conducted a hearing and counsel for Padilla informed the district court that they "attempted to contact" two witnesses, but "[o]ne is out of state so we couldn't get him here, the other one hasn't been served." Padilla, as well, was not present at the hearing. The district court heard arguments from counsel and determined that Padilla's former counsel were not deficient and that he failed to demonstrate 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, 987-88, 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 Padilla was "not entitled to an evidentiary hearing because his claims are either belied by the record or legally insufficient to warrant relief, or both." See generally Hargrove v. State, 100 Nev. 498, 503, 686 P.2d 222, 225 (1984). We conclude that Padilla

...continued petition, supplemental habeas petition submitted by counsel, and the State's multiple oppositions, all filed in the district court, see NRAF' 30(b)(2). Counsel for Padilla is cautioned that the failure to comply with the briefing and appendix requirements in the future may result in the imposition of sanctions. See NEAP 3C(n); Smith v. Emery, 109 Nev. 737, 743, 856 P.2d 1386, 1390 (1993).

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A 0 fails to demonstrate that the district court erred by rejecting his ineffective-assistance claims. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Adieu J.

Saitta

cc: Hon. Douglas Smith, District Judge The Law Office of Dan M. Winder, P.C. Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A e

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

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. Lacier v. Warden, 121 Nev. 682, 686, 120 P.3d 1164, 1166 (2005). Here, the district court conducted a hearing and counsel for Padilla informed the district court that they "attempted to contact" two witnesses, but "[o]ne is out of state so we couldn't get him here, the other one hasn't been served." Padilla, as well, was not present at the hearing. The district court heard arguments from counsel and determined that Padilla's former counsel were not deficient and that he failed to demonstrate 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, 987-88, 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 Padilla was "not entitled to an evidentiary hearing because his claims are either belied by the record or legally insufficient to warrant relief, or both." See generally Hargrove v. State, 100 Nev. 498, 503, 686 P.2d 222, 225 (1984). We conclude that Padilla