Ochs (Melanie) v. State ( 2014 )

 precluded this court's review on appeal. The district court found that Ochs
failed to specify exactly which objections counsel should have made, to
show that any objections would have resulted in a more favorable
outcome, and to demonstrate prejudice, as this court reviewed all but one
of the unpreserved claims on appeal.
Second, Ochs argues that trial counsel's representation was a
conflict of interest and the conflict was compounded by his representation
of Ochs on appeal. The district court found that Ochs failed to
demonstrate a conflict of interest by merely alleging that trial counsel had
a bad relationship with the District Attorney's Office or Ochs had no
involvement in her case other than paying, that Ochs failed to allege a
conflict of interest regarding trial counsel's handling of the expert witness,
and that there was no conflict with trial counsel handling Ochs's appeal.
Third, Ochs argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing
to obtain and/or communicate a reasonable plea offer. The district court
found that this claim was without merit because "a defendant does not
have a right to receive an offer of a plea negotiation from the State" and
"ftlhe State never extended a plea offer to [Ochs], nor does the record
indicate that the State was even willing to make an offer."
Fourth, Ochs argues that trial counsel was ineffective for
putting her character into evidence, thereby opening the door for the State
to introduce other bad acts, and for failing to object to the jury
instructions. The district court found that trial counsel's decision
regarding character evidence was a strategic one the district court would
not second-guess, see Donovan v. State, 94 Nev. 671, 675, 584 P.2d 708,
711 (1978), and that Ochs failed to establish any prejudice regarding the
jury instructions.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
Fifth, Ochs argues that the cumulative errors and combined
deficiencies by trial counsel mandate relief. The district court found that
this claim was without merit as none of Ochs's claims entitled her to relief.
Having reviewed the record on appeal, we conclude that
substantial evidence supports the district court's findings and its decision
to deny relief and that the district court did not err as a matter of law.
Riley v. State, 110 Nev. 638, 647, 878 P.2d 272, 278 (1994). Accordingly,
we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
5 J.
Parra—i"-- "tr ir
J.
Saitta
cc: Hon. Michael Villani, District Judge
The Law Office of Dan M. Winder, P.C.
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A e-