Howard, Jr. (Lamont) v. Warden ( 2016 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
LAMONT HOWARD, JR., No. 67342
Appellant,
vs.
I. BACA, WARDEN, N.N.C.C.,
FILED
Respondent. MAR 1 7 2016
TRACE K. UNDEMAN
CLERK OF . SUPREME COURT
BY
DEPUTY CLERK
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is an appeal from a district court order denying a
postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Second Judicial
District Court, Washoe County; Connie J. Steinheimer, Judge.
Appellant Lamont Howard, Jr., argues that the district court
erred in denying his petition without holding an evidentiary hearing on
his claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for opening the door to
evidence of a prior bad act in which Howard harassed a pregnant woman
who was walking with her child. To prove ineffective assistance of
counsel, a petitioner must demonstrate that counsel's performance was
deficient in that it fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and
resulting prejudice such that there is a reasonable probability that, but for
counsel's errors, the outcome of the proceedings would have been different.
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984); Warden v. Lyons,
100 Nev. 430, 432-33, 683 P.2d 504, 505 (1984) (adopting the test in
Strickland).
We conclude that the district court did not err in denying this
claim without an evidentiary hearing. On direct appeal, this court
concluded that, even if the prior bad act evidence was erroneously
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A aeo
go - 0 899 0
admitted at trial, the admission was harmless in light of the other
evidence. Howard v. State, Docket No. 59039 (Order of Affirmance,
February 6, 2013). Thus, the district court properly found that Howard
could not demonstrate a reasonable probability of a different outcome at
trial but for trial counsel's opening the door to this evidence. Because
Howard's claim of ineffective assistance failed on the prejudice prong, he
was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. See Hargrove v. State, 100
Nev. 498, 502-03, 686 P.2d 222, 225 (1984) (holding that a petitioner is
entitled to an evidentiary hearing only when his claims are supported by
specific factual allegations that are not belied by the record and, if true,
would entitle him to relief). Accordingly, we conclude that Howard fails to
demonstrate that the district court erred in denying the petition without
an evidentiary hearing, and we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
Hardesty
J.
cc: Hon. Connie J. Steinheimer, District Judge
Story Law Group
Attorney General/Carson City
Washoe County District Attorney
Washoe District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A cep