Coleman (Melvin) v. Warden ( 2014 )

 application of the law to those facts de novo. Lader v. Warden, 121 Nev.
682, 686, 120 P.3d 1164, 1166 (2005).
Appellant argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing
to communicate with him between the trial and sentencing and for failing
to present any mitigating evidence at sentencing. Appellant contends that
counsel should have called witnesses, such as his mother, fiancé, sister,
and daughter, to testify as to his character. Appellant also contends that
counsel should have argued for placement in a drug program as an
alternative to a sentence of imprisonment as a habitual criminal and that
counsel should have presented the psychological evaluation of appellant
that showed that he was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and had
not received treatment. Appellant fails to demonstrate that he was
prejudiced. Given appellant's significant criminal history, appellant fails
to demonstrate any reasonable probability of a different result at
sentencing had counsel presented testimony of his character or the
psychological evaluation. Notably, counsel informed the trial court of
appellant's mental health issues and drug addiction and asked that
appellant be placed in a drug or mental health program, but the trial court
instead adjudicated appellant as a habitual criminal and sentenced him to
life in prison with the possibility of parole after ten years.
Appellant also contends that the district court erred in
denying his ineffective-assistance claim because the district court applied
an incorrect legal standard when it stated appellant could not show
prejudice because appellant's drug problems and mental health issues did
not overcome his criminal history with regard to habitual criminal
adjudication. We disagree with appellant's interpretation of the district
court's statements. The record does not support appellant's argument that
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A e
the district court misunderstood its discretion to dismiss a habitual
criminal count. Thus, we conclude that appellant fails to demonstrate
that the district court erred in denying his claim of ineffective assistance
of counsel. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
AdesAtiv J.
Pickering
J.
01..t.h
Par irre ltr
)(17 J.
Saitta
cc: Hon. Elliott Sattler, District Judge
Edward T. Reed
Attorney General/Carson City
Washoe County District Attorney
Washoe District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A e