Hazelwood v. State
| Decision Date | 17 October 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 62023,62023 |
| Parties | SHAQUILLE E. HAZELWOOD, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority. SCR 123.
This is an appeal from a district court order denying a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Doug Smith, Judge.
The district court convicted appellant Shaquille E. Hazelwood, pursuant to a jury verdict, of first-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon and attempted robbery with the use of a deadly weapon. This court affirmed the judgment of conviction on appeal. Hazelwood v. State, Docket No. 54175 (Order of Affirmance, July 15, 2010). Hazelwood filed a proper person post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the district court. Counsel for appellant filed a supplement, and the State opposed the petition and the supplement. At a hearing on the petition, the district court declined to conduct an evidentiary hearing, finding that Hazelwood had failed to show that his attorney was deficient and that his allegations were belied by the record, and denied the petition. This appeal followed.
Hazelwood argues that the district court erred by denying his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel without conducting an evidentiary hearing. To prove ineffective assistance of counsel, apetitioner must demonstrate that counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that, but for counsel's errors, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984); Warden v. Lyons, 100 Nev. 430, 432-33, 683 P.2d 504, 505 (1984) (). Both deficiency and prejudice must be demonstrated. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697. We give deference to the district court's factual findings regarding ineffective assistance of counsel if they are supported by substantial evidence and are 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).
First, Hazelwood argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request that a guardian ad litem be appointed when he moved to withdraw his guilty plea because of his age. Hazelwood fails to demonstrate that an objectively reasonable attorney in trial counsel's place would have requested such an appointment as Hazelwood alleges no standard or statutory requirement that a criminal defendant be appointed a guardian ad litem because of age, immaturity, social background, or decision-making skills. Insomuch as Hazelwood argues that he needed a guardian ad litem to make his legal decisions for him, "[t]he decision of how to plead in a criminal case is a fundamental one reserved ultimately to the defendant alone." Parker v. State, 100 Nev. 264, 265, 679 P.2d 1271, 1272 (1984); see also Robinson v. State, 110 Nev. 1137, 1138, 881 P.2d 667, 668 (1994) (). Further, Hazelwood fails to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different as the district court appointed separate counsel for the limited purpose ofreviewing the motion and advising Hazelwood on his plea withdrawal, and, after conferring with special counsel and being thoroughly canvassed by the district court on his decision, Hazelwood chose to withdraw his guilty plea and proceed to trial.1
Second, Hazelwood claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress the eyewitness identification by Claire Daniels because it was unnecessarily suggestive, she abused drugs, and her testimony as to how long she knew Hazelwood before the incident was impeached. A review of the record reveals that Daniels told the officer that she knew the shooter and identified him by name prior to being shown any photograph. After being shown a photograph of Hazelwood taken from when he was younger, Daniels immediately identified him as the shooter but said that he looked younger in the picture. Given the strong identification by Daniels, counsel's conduct did not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness. Furthermore, Hazelwood failed to demonstrate that a motion to suppress the eyewitness identification had a reasonable likelihood of success. Doyle v. State, 116 Nev. 148, 154, 995 P.2d 465, 469 (2000) (). As forthe claims that Daniels abused drugs and that her testimony regarding the length of time she had known Hazelwood was impeached, these claims went to the weight and credibility of Daniels' testimony and were "within the exclusive province of the jury." White v. State, 95 Nev. 881, 885, 603 P.2d 1063, 1065 (1979). Accordingly, trial counsel was not deficient, and the district court did not err in denying this claim.
Third, Hazelwood argues that trial counsel was ineffective for disclosing his incarceration pending trial. In reviewing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, this court has stated that "a tactical decision . . . is 'virtually unchallengeable absent extraordinary circumstances.'" Doleman v. State, 112 Nev. 843, 848, 921 P.2d 278, 280-81 (1996) (quoting Howard v. State, 106 Nev. 713, 722, 800 P.2d 175, 180 (1990) abrogated on other grounds by Harte v. State, 116 Nev. 1054, 1072 n.6, 13 P.3d 420, 432 n.6 (2000)). Hazelwood has not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances. During opening statements, counsel disclosed that Hazelwood was incarcerated pending trial when she referenced the fact that Aaron Noble, one of the State's witnesses to the shooting who had told officers he would never forget the shooter, shared a cell with Hazelwood for about a week and did not recognize him. We conclude that trial counsel's decision to disclose Hazelwood's custodial status in order to attack Noble's eyewitness identification was not unreasonable, and the district court did not err in denying this claim.
Fourth, Hazelwood argues that trial counsel was ineffective for disclosing his prior juvenile conduct. On cross-examination of the lead detective, counsel asked the officer whether he contacted Spring Mountain Youth Camp regarding Hazelwood, to which the officer answered in the affirmative, and what his purpose was in contacting the camp, but a benchconference was held before the officer answered. Outside the presence of the jury, trial counsel explained that her line of questioning was a strategic decision. We conclude that Hazelwood has failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances to challenge counsel's tactical decision and that counsel's performance was not deficient. Id. Furthermore, Hazelwood has failed to show prejudice, as the jury was never informed that the camp was a juvenile detention facility or that Hazelwood was ever detained there. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying this claim.2
Fifth, Hazelwood claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request that the jury be instructed on the lesser-included offense of voluntary manslaughter. Hazelwood acknowledges that the existence of malice precludes an instruction on voluntary manslaughter. Graves v. State, 84 Nev. 262, 266, 439 P.2d 476, 478 (1968). However, Hazelwood argues that the jury could have reasonably concluded that the shooter was provoked by the victim's attempt to drive away while the shooter's arm was inside the vehicle and that the rapid acceleration caused the shooter to pull the gun's trigger. A review of the record reveals substantial evidence that...
To continue reading
Request your trial