Hankston (Lemel) v. State

evidence, Means v. State, 120 Nev. 1001, 1012, 103 P.3d 25, 33 (2004). We give deference to the district court's factual findings if 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). Hankston asserts that had counsel interviewed Shane Harris and Tasha Bradford they would have informed him that at least one of the individuals who approached Hankston before the shooting was armed and with this information counsel could have presented a theory of self- defense, as he requested. The district court conducted an evidentiary hearing, found Bradford's testimony not credible, made no finding regarding Harris or Hankston's testimony, and found credible trial counsel's testimony that Hankston never told him that he acted in self- defense or asked him to seek out any witnesses to present a theory of self- defense. The district court also noted that, while the jury was deliberating at trial, counsel stated that Harris had been contacted by an investigator and had nothing to offer and Hankston acknowledged that either Harris was unable or unwilling to testify. The district court denied Hankston's claims, concluding that counsel was not deficient for presenting a misidentification defense and Hankston failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the verdict would have otherwise been different because neither Bradford nor Harris actually saw the shooting. See State v. Love, 109 Nev. 1136, 1139, 865 P.2d 322, 324 (1993). The record SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A supports these determinations. We conclude that the district court did not err by denying these claims, and we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.' J. Hardesty Cherry cc: Hon. Stefany Miley, District Judge Craig W. Drummond Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk Footnotes [1] Hankston's fast track statement does not comply with NRAP 3C(h)(1) and NRAP 32(a)(4) because it does not have 1-inch margins on all four sides. We caution Hankston's counsel, Craig Drummond, that future failure to comply with formatting requirements when filing briefs with this court may result in the imposition of sanctions. See NRAP 3C(n). SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A 13MKIIIiiStIlEMISEENAWEMillf1M05