Irive (Ricardo) v. State ( 2015 )

 which prevented him from accepting the offer before it was withdrawn by
the State. At the evidentiary hearing, trial counsel testified that she
informed Irive of the plea offer but advised him to give her time to
investigate whether the plea offer would be beneficial before he considered
accepting the offer. Trial counsel further testified that the prosecutor
never explicitly provided an expiration date for the plea offer and that her
conversations with the prosecutor left her with the impression that the
plea offer would be available until trial. The district court determined
that trial counsel's advice to Irive, decision to investigate, and belief as to
when the plea offer would expire were reasonable in light of counsel's
ongoing negotiations and communications with the prosecutor. We
conclude that the district court's findings were not clearly erroneous and
that substantial evidence supports the district court's decision that trial
counsel's performance was reasonable. See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689;
Lara v. State, 120 Nev. 177, 180, 87 P.3d 528, 530 (2004) (explaining that
"trial counsel's strategic or tactical decisions will be virtually
unchallengeable absent extraordinary circumstances" (internal quotation
marks omitted)). Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not
err in denying this claim, and we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
J.
, J.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A clr140,
cc: Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, District Judge
Law Office of Kristina Wildeveld
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A )46141))