Castillo (Christopher) v. State

 an evidentiary hearing, wherein Castillo's former counsel testified that
she advised Castillo to waive the hearing because certification as an adult
was a virtual certainty due to his use of a firearm and therefore
negotiating an agreement with the State was the best option available.
During argument, post-conviction counsel conceded that it was a "big
stretch" to suggest that Castillo would not have been certified as an adult
and stated she raised the claim to demonstrate his "unsophisticated view
of the criminal justice system" and bolster her argument regarding
mitigation. Because of this, and because Castillo admitted that he was
satisfied with the negotiations, the district court denied this claim as
moot. The district court also concluded that Castillo failed to demonstrate
deficiency or prejudice. The record supports the district court's
determinations, and we conclude that it did not err by denying this claim.
See NRS 62B.390(2)(a)(2) (in most cases, the juvenile court shall certify a
child as an adult if he is charged with an offense involving the use of a
firearm), see also Doleman v. State, 112 Nev. 843, 848, 921 P.2d 278, 280-
81 (1996) (counsel's tactical decisions are virtually unchallengeable).
Second, Castillo contends that the district court erred by
denying his claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to present
witnesses at sentencing to testify about Castillo's low intelligence,
cognitive immaturity, and troubled upbringing. After hearing testimony
from the newly offered witnesses, the district court concluded that Castillo
failed to demonstrate deficiency or prejudice because trial counsel had
presented mitigation evidence and the sentence would not have been
different had he presented the new witnesses. The record supports the
district court's determinations, and we conclude that it did not err by
denying this claim.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.'
, J.
Hardesty
)%143 J.
Douglas
J.
cc: Hon. Brent T. Adams, District Judge
Mary Lou Wilson
Attorney General/Carson City
Washoe County District Attorney
Washoe District Court Clerk
'The fast track statement submitted by Castillo fails to comply with
NRAP 3C(h)(1) because the footnotes are not "in the same size and
typeface as the body of the brief," NRAP 32(a)(5). Counsel is cautioned
that future failure to comply with this court's briefing requirements may
result in the imposition of sanctions. See NRAP 3C(n).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A