claim without an evidentiary hearing in Nevada

2021See Nika v. State, 124 Nev. 1272, 1300-01 , 198 P.3d 839, 858 (2008) (providing that a petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing when the claims asserted are supported by "specific factual allegations that are not belied or repelled by the record and that, if true, would entitle [the petitioner] to relien.

2021See Nika v. State, 124 Nev. 1272, 1300-01 , 198 P.3d 839, 858 (2008) (providing that a petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing when the claims asserted are supported by "specific factual allegations that are not belied or repelled by the record and that, if true, would entitle [the petitioner] to relien.

2019See Hargrove v. State , 100 Nev. 498 , 503, 686 P.2d 222 , 225 (1984) (concluding a petitioner is only entitled to an evidentiary hearing if he raises claims, supported by specific factual allegations, that would warrant relief if true and only if the claims are not belied by the record).

2019See Hargrove v. State , 100 Nev. 498 , 503, 686 P.2d 222 , 225 (1984) (concluding a petitioner is only entitled to an evidentiary hearing if he raises claims, supported by specific factual allegations, that would warrant relief if true and only if the claims are not belied by the record).

2021See Tiger v. State, 98 Nev. 555, 558 , 654 P.2d 1031, 1033 (1982) (providing that the district court must determine that there is a 3 ' factual basis for the plea pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), and that the defendant understands the elements of the charged offense).]- The district court therefore did not err in denying this claim without an evidentiary hearing.

2021See Tiger v. State, 98 Nev. 555, 558 , 654 P.2d 1031, 1033 (1982) (providing that the district court must determine that there is a 3 ' factual basis for the plea pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), and that the defendant understands the elements of the charged offense).]- The district court therefore did not err in denying this claim without an evidentiary hearing.

2021See Tiger v. State, 98 Nev. 555, 558 , 654 P.2d 1031, 1033 (1982) (providing that the district court must determine that there is a 3 ' factual basis for the plea pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), and that the defendant understands the elements of the charged offense).]- The district court therefore did not err in denying this claim without an evidentiary hearing.

2020Schlup, 513 U.S. at 324 (recognizing that a claim of actual innocence requires a "petitioner to support his allegations of constitutional error with new reliable evidence—whether it be exculpatory scientific evidence, trustworthy eyewitness accounts, or critical physical evidence"); Berry v. State, 131 Nev. 957 , 967-69, 363 P.3d 1148 , 1154, 1156 (2015) (recognizing that the court may make credibility determinations before determining whether to conduct an evidentiary hearing, and a petitioner is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing when the claim is not supported by specific facts not beli

2020See Wyatt v. State, 86 Nev. 294, 298 , 468 P.2d 338, 341 (1970).

2020See Wyatt v. State, 86 Nev. 294, 298 , 468 P.2d 338, 341 (1970).

2020Even assuming multiple instances of deficient performance could be cumulated for purposes of demonstrating prejudice, see McConnell v. State, 125 Nev, 243, 259, 212 P.3d 307, 318 (2009), as Smith has not demonstrated counsel's performance was deficient, there is nothing to cumulate.

2020The district 2 court therefore did not err in denying this claim without an evidentiary hearing.2 See Ennis v. Stale, 122 Nev. 694, 706 , 137 P.3d 1095, 1103 (2006) (Trial counsel need not lodge futile objections to avoid ineffective assistance of counsel claims.").

2020The district 2 court therefore did not err in denying this claim without an evidentiary hearing.2 See Ennis v. Stale, 122 Nev. 694, 706 , 137 P.3d 1095, 1103 (2006) (Trial counsel need not lodge futile objections to avoid ineffective assistance of counsel claims.").

2017SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 5 (0) 1947A 7.e Eighth, Patterson argues that trial counsel should have requested an admonishment limiting juror questions to factual matters, pursuant to Flores v. State, 114 Nev. 910, 913 , 965 P.2d 901, 902-03 (2005) (setting forth safeguards for the trial court's exercise of its discretion concerning juror questions, including that questions be factual in nature).

2017SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 5 (0) 1947A 7.e Eighth, Patterson argues that trial counsel should have requested an admonishment limiting juror questions to factual matters, pursuant to Flores v. State, 114 Nev. 910, 913 , 965 P.2d 901, 902-03 (2005) (setting forth safeguards for the trial court's exercise of its discretion concerning juror questions, including that questions be factual in nature).

2017Thomas next argues that appellate counsel should have argued that cumulative error warranted relief. 4 As the only trial error identified on direct appeal concerned the failure to hold a hearing pursuant to Petrocelli v. State, 101 Nev. 46 , 692 P.2d 503 (1985), for which we determined that relief was not warranted, and one error cannot cumulate, see United States v. Sager, 227 F.3d 1138, 1149 (9th Cir. 2000), Thomas has not shown that appellate counsel deficiently omitted a cumulative-error claim to his prejudice.

2017Fourth, Butler argues that appellate counsel should have challenged a victim-impact statement requesting "the worst possible punishment." While victims are not permitted to express an opinion on sentencing in a capital case, Kaczmarek v. State, 120 Nev. 314, 339 , 91 P.3d 16, 33 (2004), a witness's inadmissible utterance that is not elicited by the State may be cured by an immediate admonishment to disregard, Carter v. State, 121 Nev. 759, 770 , 121 P.3d 592, 599 (2005), and the trial court here sustained Butler's contemporaneous objection and previously admonished the jury not to consider any

2017Fourth, Butler argues that appellate counsel should have challenged a victim-impact statement requesting "the worst possible punishment." While victims are not permitted to express an opinion on sentencing in a capital case, Kaczmarek v. State, 120 Nev. 314, 339 , 91 P.3d 16, 33 (2004), a witness's inadmissible utterance that is not elicited by the State may be cured by an immediate admonishment to disregard, Carter v. State, 121 Nev. 759, 770 , 121 P.3d 592, 599 (2005), and the trial court here sustained Butler's contemporaneous objection and previously admonished the jury not to consider any

2017Fourth, Butler argues that appellate counsel should have challenged a victim-impact statement requesting "the worst possible punishment." While victims are not permitted to express an opinion on sentencing in a capital case, Kaczmarek v. State, 120 Nev. 314, 339 , 91 P.3d 16, 33 (2004), a witness's inadmissible utterance that is not elicited by the State may be cured by an immediate admonishment to disregard, Carter v. State, 121 Nev. 759, 770 , 121 P.3d 592, 599 (2005), and the trial court here sustained Butler's contemporaneous objection and previously admonished the jury not to consider any

2017Fourth, Butler argues that appellate counsel should have challenged a victim-impact statement requesting "the worst possible punishment." While victims are not permitted to express an opinion on sentencing in a capital case, Kaczmarek v. State, 120 Nev. 314, 339 , 91 P.3d 16, 33 (2004), a witness's inadmissible utterance that is not elicited by the State may be cured by an immediate admonishment to disregard, Carter v. State, 121 Nev. 759, 770 , 121 P.3d 592, 599 (2005), and the trial court here sustained Butler's contemporaneous objection and previously admonished the jury not to consider any

2014A defendant may be convicted of both robbery and false imprisonment arising out of the same course of events only where the restraint necessary for false imprisonment "stand Is] alone with independent significance from the act of robbery itself, create[s] a risk of danger to the victim substantially exceeding that necessarily present in the crime of robbery, or involve[s] . . . restraint substantially in excess of that necessary to its completion." Mendoza v. State, 122 Nev. 267, 275 , 130 P.3d 176, 181 (2006) (analyzing the issue in a kidnapping-robbery context); see Garcia v. State, 121 Nev.

2014A defendant may be convicted of both robbery and false imprisonment arising out of the same course of events only where the restraint necessary for false imprisonment "stand Is] alone with independent significance from the act of robbery itself, create[s] a risk of danger to the victim substantially exceeding that necessarily present in the crime of robbery, or involve[s] . . . restraint substantially in excess of that necessary to its completion." Mendoza v. State, 122 Nev. 267, 275 , 130 P.3d 176, 181 (2006) (analyzing the issue in a kidnapping-robbery context); see Garcia v. State, 121 Nev.

2014A defendant may be convicted of both robbery and false imprisonment arising out of the same course of events only where the restraint necessary for false imprisonment "stand Is] alone with independent significance from the act of robbery itself, create[s] a risk of danger to the victim substantially exceeding that necessarily present in the crime of robbery, or involve[s] . . . restraint substantially in excess of that necessary to its completion." Mendoza v. State, 122 Nev. 267, 275 , 130 P.3d 176, 181 (2006) (analyzing the issue in a kidnapping-robbery context); see Garcia v. State, 121 Nev.

2014A defendant may be convicted of both robbery and false imprisonment arising out of the same course of events only where the restraint necessary for false imprisonment "stand Is] alone with independent significance from the act of robbery itself, create[s] a risk of danger to the victim substantially exceeding that necessarily present in the crime of robbery, or involve[s] . . . restraint substantially in excess of that necessary to its completion." Mendoza v. State, 122 Nev. 267, 275 , 130 P.3d 176, 181 (2006) (analyzing the issue in a kidnapping-robbery context); see Garcia v. State, 121 Nev.