Coleman (Melvin) v. State ( 2014 )

 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).
First, appellant argues that his trial counsel was ineffective
for failing to move to dismiss his case based on the excessive pre-
indictment delay and violation of his right to a speedy trial.' Appellant
fails to demonstrate that actual, nonspeculative prejudice resulted from
the delay or that the State intentionally delayed filing a complaint to gain
a tactical advantage, see Wyman, 125 Nev. at 600-01, 217 P.3d at 578; see
also United States v. Gouveia, 467 U.S. 180, 192 (1984), therefore
appellant fails to demonstrate that trial counsel's performance was
deficient or that he was prejudiced. 2 Accordingly, the district court did not
err in denying this claim.
Second, appellant argues that his trial counsel was ineffective
for failing to object to numerous instances of prosecutorial misconduct
committed in the State's closing argument. Appellant fails to demonstrate
deficiency or prejudice. The district court found that trial counsel made a
conscious, strategic decision not to object to some of the comments so as
not to call further attention to the comments. The district court further
found that an objection to any of the comments, some of which the district
court found were not improper, would not have altered the result of the
We note that any delay between the commission of an offense and
an indictment is generally limited by statutes of limitations. United
States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783, 789 (1977); Wyman v. State, 125 Nev. 592,
600 n.3, 217 P.3d 572, 578 n.3 (2009).
2 To the extent that appellant urges us to re-evaluate the standard
set forth in Wyman, we decline to do so.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
tria1. 3 The district court's factual findings are supported by substantial
evidence, and we agree with the district court's determinations and
conclude that it did not err by denying these claims. See Bussard v.
Lockhart, 32 F.3d 322, 324 (8th Cir. 1994) (observing that decision
whether to object to prosecutorial misconduct is a strategic one and "must
take into account the possibility that the court will overrule it and that the
objection will either antagonize the jury or underscore the prosecutor's
words in their minds"); Epps v. State, 901 F.2d 1481, 1483 (8th Cir. 1990)
(explaining that prosecutor's comments that were not objectionable could
not be a basis for an ineffective-assistance claim based on counsel's failure
to object).
Having considered appellant's contentions and concluded that
they lack merit, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
J.
3 Wenote our decision in appellant's appeal, Coleman, Jr. v. State,
Docket No. 54622 (Order of Affirmance, April 8, 2010), in which we
concluded that "significant independent evidence of guilt—including the
victim's testimony and DNA evidence—exists to support appellant's
conviction."
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A
cc: Hon. Elliott A. Sattler, District Judge
Karla K. l3utko
Attorney General/Carson City
Washoe County District Attorney
Washoe District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A