Opinion
No. 67868
06-17-2016
CLARENCE ALVIN GAMBLE, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is an appeal from a district court order denying appellant Clarence Alvin Gamble's postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Linda Marie Bell, Judge.
Gamble contends that the district court erred by denying his claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present evidence that he suffered from health conditions and was taking medications which might have affected his cognitive abilities at the time he committed the crimes. Gamble fails to demonstrate that counsel was deficient or that he was prejudiced. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984) (setting forth a two-part test of deficiency and prejudice); Warden v. Lyons, 100 Nev. 430, 432-33, 683 P.2d 504, 505 (1984) (adopting the test in Strickland). Gamble merely lists health conditions he suffered from and medications he was prescribed and surmises, without adequate explanation, that they might have affected his mental status and thereby negated the mens rea component of the crimes. Even crediting this bare assertion, Gamble fails to square it with his trial testimony that he pursued the victim because he wanted to know why she left him and killed her in self-defense. We thereby conclude that Gamble fails to demonstrate that the district court erred. See Lader v. Warden, 121 Nev. 682, 686, 120 P.3d 1164, 1166 (2005) (recognizing that we give deference to the district court's factual findings when reviewing its resolution of a postconviction petition but review the court's application of the law to those facts de novo). Accordingly, we
Gamble was convicted of aggravated stalking and first-degree murder with use of a deadly weapon.
Gamble also contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying his request for neurological testing. We disagree. The district court provided Gamble with ample opportunity to substantiate the claims raised in his petition and conducted two evidentiary hearings, at which Gamble presented expert testimony. After the second evidentiary hearing, Gamble filed a supplemental petition wherein he explained that, if the district court was not satisfied by his expert's testimony, he requested authorization to retain a different expert so he could try again. The district court demurred. Gamble fails to convince us that the district court abused its discretion. --------
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
/s/_________, J.
Douglas /s/_________, J.
Cherry /s/_________, J.
Gibbons cc: Hon. Linda Marie Bell, District Judge
Oronoz & Ericsson
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk