eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Nevada Supreme Court
 2013-04

Keller (John) v. State ( 2013 )


Menu:
 
  •                                   Second, Keller claims that the district court erred by denying
his claims that (1) the district court denied him his rights to equal
protection and due process by accepting his guilty plea without advising
him of his right to an appeal and (2) he was unable to present additional
claims because he did not have the entire file. Keller does not support
these claims with any cogent argument or citation to authority and we
decline to address them. See Maresca v. State,
    103 Nev. 669
    , 673,
    748 P.2d 3
    , 6 (1987).
Third, Keller argues that the district court erred by declining
to appoint counsel to assist with all of his claims. We conclude Keller fails
to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion by appointing
counsel to assist him with only his appeal deprivation claim. See NRS
34.750(1).
Fourth, Keller contends that the district court erred by
denying his claim that he was denied his right to a direct appeal due to
ineffective assistance of counsel. When reviewing the district court's
resolution of an ineffective-assistance claim, we give deference to the
court's factual findings if they are supported by substantial evidence and
not clearly erroneous, but 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). The district court found that Keller failed to demonstrate that
counsel was deficient. See Strickland v. Washington,
    466 U.S. 668
    , 687
(1984) (establishing two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel);
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
vrarr
2
(0) 1947A
Kirksey v. State,
    112 Nev. 980
    , 987-88,
    923 P.2d 1102
    , 1107 (1996)
(adopting the Strickland test). The district court's findings are supported
by substantial evidence and are not clearly wrong, and Keller has failed to
demonstrate that the district court erred as a matter of law. See Toston v.
State, 127 Nev. „
    267 P.3d 795
    , 801 (2011) (discussing
circumstances under which counsel has a duty to file a direct appeal).
Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
Hardesty
Parraguirre
cc:   Hon. Linda Marie Bell, District Judge
Matthew D. Carling
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A
3