Sanders (Timothy) v. State ( 2015 )

 facts de novo. Lader v. Warden, 121 Nev. 682, 686, 120 P.3d 1164, 1166
(2005).
First, Sanders argues that trial counsel was ineffective for
failing to file a pretrial motion to suppress his statement to officers during
a custodial interrogation. When an ineffective-assistance claim is based
upon the failure to file a motion to suppress, "the prejudice prong must be
established by a showing that the claim was meritorious and that there
was a reasonable likelihood that the exclusion of the evidence would have
changed the result of a trial." Kirksey v. State, 112 Nev. 980, 990, 923
P.2d 1102, 1109 (1996). Sanders fails to allege, let alone demonstrate, a
reasonable likelihood of a different result at trial had the statements been
suppressed. Additionally, Sanders does not identify what statements,
made after his alleged invocation of counsel, should have been suppressed
or allege that any such statements were introduced at trial. We therefore
conclude that the district court did not err by denying this claim.
Second, Sanders contends that trial counsel was ineffective for
failing to file a pretrial motion to sever the joint trial because he was
prejudiced when the State referred to the defendants collectively during
argument to the jury and when evidence against each defendant came in
against both. Sanders fails to demonstrate deficiency as he has not
demonstrated that such a motion would have been successful. See
Donovan v. State, 94 Nev. 671, 675, 584 P.2d 708, 711 (1978) (holding that
counsel cannot be ineffective for failing to make futile motions).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A e
Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err by denying this claim.
Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
Saitta
cc: Hon. Stefany Miley, District Judge
Carmine J. Colucci & Associates
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A 44e40