Ingraham, Jr. (John) v. Warden

 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
wrong 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). Here,
the district court conducted an evidentiary hearing and heard testimony
from Ingraham, his trial and appellate counsel, and four additional
witnesses who addressed issues pertaining to Ingraham's theory of self-
defense and mitigation at sentencing. The district court found that
Ingraham failed to demonstrate that trial counsel was deficient or
prejudice. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694 (1984);
Kirksey v. State, 112 Nev. 980, 987, 923 P.2d 1102, 1107 (1996); see also
Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. „ 131 S. Ct. 1388, 1408 (2011)
("Surmounting Strickland's high bar is never an easy task." (quotation
marks omitted) (alteration omitted)). The district court also determined
that appellate counsel was not ineffective. See Kirksey, 112 Nev. at 998,
923 P.2d at 1113-14. We conclude that the district court did not err by
rejecting Ingraham's ineffective-assistance claims, and we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
J.
Hardesty
Douglas
SUPREME COURT
Cherry
a lWartAdb, , J.
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1.947A eia>
cc: Hon. Elliott A. Sattler, District Judge
Karla K. Butko
Attorney General/Carson City
Washoe County District Attorney
Washoe District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A en