Opinion
No. 59817.
12-13-2012
Lamar Antwan HARRIS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent.
Leslie A. Park Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney
Leslie A. Park
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction, pursuant to a jury verdict, of battery with the use of a deadly weapon resulting in substantial bodily harm. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Carolyn Ellsworth, Judge. Appellant Lamar Antwan Harris raises two issues on appeal.
First, Harris contends that insufficient evidence was adduced to support the jury's verdict. Specifically, Harris cites to Heglemeier v. State, 111 Nev. 1244, 903 P.2d 799 (1995), and Austin v. State, 87 Nev. 578, 491 P.2d 724 (1971), for his claim that his conviction should be reversed because “there is no corroboration between the evidence of stab wounds on [the victim's] face and chest and use of a deadly weapon” by Harris. But Harris has misinterpreted Heglemeier and Austin because those cases require corroboration only for cases involving accomplice testimony. The State presented no accomplice testimony. Instead, the State presented several witnesses who saw Harris stab the victim. It is for the jury to determine the weight and credibility to give testimony, McNair v. State. 108 Nev. 53, 56, 825 P.2d 571, 573 (1992), and a jury's verdict will not be disturbed on appeal where, as here, sufficient evidence supports the verdict, Bolden v. State, 97 Nev. 71, 73, 624 P.2d 20, 20 (1981). Therefore, we conclude that, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence is sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as determined by a rational trier of fact. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979) ; Mitchell v. State, 124 Nev. 807, 816, 192 P.3d 721, 727 (2008) ; see also NRS 200.481(l)(a), (2)(e) (defining the elements and penalties for battery with a deadly weapon).
Second, Harris contends that his defense counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge a veniremember for cause or use a peremptory challenge to excuse him. This court has repeatedly stated that, generally, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel will not be considered on direct appeal. See Johnson v. State, 117 Nev. 153, 160–61, 17 P.3d 1008, 1013 (2001). Harris has failed to provide this court with any reason to depart from this policy in his case. See id.; see also Archanian v. State, 122 Nev. 1019, 1036, 145 P.3d 1008, 1020–21 (2006). Thus, we decline to address this claim.
Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.