From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gonzalez v. State

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Dec 10, 2014
No. 65275 (Nev. Dec. 10, 2014)

Opinion

No. 65275

12-10-2014

HECTOR MIGUEL GONZALEZ, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.


An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority. SCR 123.

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

This is an appeal from a district court order denying appellant Hector Miguel Gonzalez's post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Elissa F. Cadish, Judge.

Gonzalez contends that the district court erred by denying his post-conviction habeas petition. Gonzalez claims that trial counsel were ineffective for failing to investigate and present evidence to support his theory of defense. Gonzalez also claims that trial counsel were ineffective for failing to file pretrial motions to (1) dismiss based on a Marcum violation, (2) suppress incriminating statements, (3) exclude a prior bad act, (4) bifurcate the proceedings and sever the "violation of a court order" element in six of the charged counts, and (5) obtain a psychological evaluation of the victim. We disagree with Gonzalez's contention.

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 Gonzalez and one of the two attorneys who represented him at trial. The district court found that Gonzalez failed to demonstrate that trial counsel were 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)). We conclude that the district court's findings are supported by substantial evidence, see Riley v. State, 110 Nev. 638, 647, 878 P.2d 272, 278 (1994), and the district court did not err by rejecting Gonzalez's ineffective-assistance claims. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

/s/_________, C.J.

Gibbons
/s/_________, J.
Pickering
/s/_________, J.
Saitta
cc: Hon. Elissa F. Cadish, District Judge

Terrence M. Jackson

Attorney General/Carson City

Clark County District Attorney

Eighth District Court Clerk

Sheriff v. Marcum, 105 Nev. 824, 827, 783 P.2d 1389, 1391 (1989).


Summaries of

Gonzalez v. State

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Dec 10, 2014
No. 65275 (Nev. Dec. 10, 2014)
Case details for

Gonzalez v. State

Case Details

Full title:HECTOR MIGUEL GONZALEZ, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

Date published: Dec 10, 2014

Citations

No. 65275 (Nev. Dec. 10, 2014)