First, appellant claimed that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a copy of the victim's drug treatment records to impeach her testimony that she was receiving treatment. Appellant failed to demonstrate that his trial counsel's performance was deficient or that he was prejudiced. The victim testified that she was receiving treatment and admitted that she was seeking illegal prescription painkillers when the robbery occurred. Appellant failed to demonstrate that her treatment records would have been relevant, or that there was a reasonable probability of a different outcome had trial counsel obtained these records.

Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying this claim.

Second, appellant claimed that his trial counsel was ineffective for using the court marshal's weapon as demonstrative evidence when questioning a police officer about the victim's description of the weapon. Appellant noted that one of the jurors had a question as to whether the weapon used had been found. Appellant failed to demonstrate that his trial counsel's performance was deficient or that he was prejudiced. It was clear from the evidence presented that the weapon used was not recovered. Trial counsel cross-examined the witness about the discrepancy in the victim's description of the weapon. Appellant failed to demonstrate that there was a reasonable probability of a different outcome had trial counsel not used the court marshal's weapon as demonstrative evidence. Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying this claim.

Third, appellant claimed that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to continue when his trial counsel allegedly received copies of the victim's written statement and the officer's reports days before trial. Appellant failed to demonstrate that his counsel's SUPREME COURT performance was deficient or that he was prejudiced as he failed to OF NEVADA (0) 1947A e demonstrate a motion to continue would have been meritorious or that there was a reasonable probability of a different outcome had the trial been continued. Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying this claim.

Fourth, appellant claimed that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress "all" of the evidence because there was no evidence of a second person for the conspiracy charge and no weapon was found for the felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm charge.

Appellant failed to demonstrate that his counsel's performance was deficient or that he was prejudiced. Appellant failed to demonstrate that such a motion would have been meritorious. Further, he failed to identify what evidence should have been suppressed. Appellant failed to demonstrate that there was a reasonable probability of a different outcome had trial counsel litigated a motion to suppress. Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying this claim.

Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

J.

Hardesty

Douglas Cherry

cc: Hon. Jessie Elizabeth Walsh, District Judge Kamario Mantrell Smith Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A