Higuera (Steven) v. State ( 2015 )

Higuera argues that counsel was ineffective for failing to conduct an adequate investigation to locate and produce A. Olmo for trial.' Higuera has failed to demonstrate that counsel was deficient. The defense investigator went to Olmo's known addresses, but Olmo's home was in foreclosure, he did not have a stable residence, and he changed phone numbers. The investigator attended Olmo's own court hearings in an effort to contact and serve him with subpoenas, but Olmo failed to appear. The investigator also attempted to contact Olmo through his family but to no avail as Olmo had very little contact with them at the time. Further, Olmo testified at the postconviction evidentiary hearing that he was out of the country for months at a time leading up to and during trial. Finally, counsel explained her reasoning in not personally conducting the investigation. Counsel made reasonable efforts to locate Olmo, and Higuera fails to identify what additional efforts counsel should have made leading up to trial. We therefore conclude that the district court did not err in denying this claim, and we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. J. Pi 664 cite , J. Gibbons Pickering 'This court affirmed the denial of Higuera's remaining claims but reversed the denial of this claim and remanded it to the district court to conduct an evidentiary hearing, see Higuera v. State, Docket No. 59514 (Order Affirming in Part, Reversing in Part, and Remanding, January 16, 2013), which the district court did. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 0) 1947A 4E*, cc: Eighth Judicial District Court Dept. 20 McLetchie Shell LLC Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A