Barrett (Rachel) v. State

 this court with a copy of the petition filed below,' see NRAP 30(b)(3)
(appellant's appendix shall include all "portions of the record essential to
determination of issues raised in appellant's appeal"), we cannot say that
the district court erred by denying the petition without first conducting an
evidentiary hearing, see NRS 34.770(2). We conclude that Barrett has
failed to demonstrate that she is entitled to relief, and we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2

Pickering

Parraguirre r
—Clajta Saitta

3Barrett's appendix includes a "Statement of Facts." This document
does not bear a district court file stamp, see NRAP 30(c)(1), and it is not
clear that this document was part of the post-conviction petition for a writ
of habeas corpus filed in the district court. Assuming that this document
was included in the petition filed below and accurately identifies the
issues raised, we conclude that the district court did not err by denying
the petition without first conducting an evidentiary hearing. See Hill v.
Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 58-59 (1985); Kirksey v. State, 112 Nev. 980, 987-88,
923 P.2d 1102, 1107 (1996).

2Appellant's appendix does not include all documents required under
NRAP 30(b)(2). We caution appellant's counsel, Michael C. Novi, that
future failure to comply with this court's rules when filing documents may
result in the imposition of sanctions. See NRAP 3C(n).

SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A (94IP4(9
 cc: Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge
Michael C. Novi
Attorney General/Carson City
Carson City District Attorney
Carson City Clerk

SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) I947A