Hayward (Lashana) v. State

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
LASHANA MONIQUE HAYVVARD, No. 67616
Appellant,
vs. FILED
THE STATE OF NEVADA,
Respondent. MAY 0 9 2016
TRACE K. LINDEMAN
CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
BY
DEPUTY CLERK
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is a pro se appeal from a district court order denying
appellant Lashana Monique Hayward's postconviction petition for a writ
of habeas corpus." Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Douglas
W. Herndon, Judge.
Hayward contended that trial counsel was ineffective for
failing to coherently argue that her trial should be severed from that of
her codefendant. Hayward also contended that counsel was ineffective on
appeal for failing to support her severance issue with cogent argument
and legal authority. The district court concluded that Hayward failed to
demonstrate that counsel was ineffective. We agree. See Lader v.
Warden, 121 Nev. 682, 686, 120 P.3d 1164, 1166 (2005) (explaining that
we give deference to the court's factual findings but review the court's
application of the law to those facts de novo). Counsel argued at trial and
on appeal that a severance was warranted, and although Hayward
asserted that counsel's arguments were not compelling, she failed to
demonstrate that a reasonable attorney would have made different
arguments or that the result of trial or appeal would have been different
'Hayward was represented by counsel in the postconviction
proceeding below.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A .eto
- 1111-117
had counsel done so. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88
(1984) (holding that a petitioner must demonstrate that counsel's
performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and a
reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, the outcome of the
proceedings would have been different); Warden v. Lyons, 100 Nev. 430,
432-33, 683 P.2d 504, 505 (1984) (applying Strickland to trial counsel);
Kirksey v. State, 112 Nev. 980, 998, 923 P.2d 1102, 1114 (1996) (applying
Strickland to appellate counsel).
Next, Hayward contended that the trial court prejudiced her
by declining to consider whether counsel was effective at trial before
allowing said counsel to represent her on appeal from her judgment of
conviction. The district court concluded that this claim lacked merit. We
agree. If counsel was ineffective, the appropriate mechanism to challenge
her performance was a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus,
such as the petition discussed herein. See Gibbons v. State, 97 Nev. 520,
523, 634 P.2d 1214, 1216 (1981) ("[T]he more appropriate vehicle for
presenting a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is through post-
conviction relief."). Yet, other than the issue discussed above, Hayward
failed to identify any other errors counsel allegedly committed. Therefore,
no relief was warranted on this claim.
Having considered Hayward's contentions and concluded they
lack merit, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
/J4,t X.44-c , J.
Hardesty
SUPREME COURT
OF Saitta
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
cc: Hon. Douglas W. Herndon, District Judge
Lashana Monique Hayward
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) I947A