## Facts

- James Earl Hill was convicted of sexual assault and murder and was sentenced to death.
- After trial, Hill filed a state postconviction petition for relief, arguing that his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel.
- Hill’s ineffective-assistance claims centered on his mental capacity and background, including a reported IQ of 68 and a traumatic childhood.
- Hill contended that trial counsel failed to adequately investigate whether Hill was competent to stand trial and failed to raise an insanity defense (or a similar mental-state defense) based on Hill’s intellectual functioning and history.
- At the postconviction evidentiary hearing, Hill’s trial attorney testified that he knew Hill had a low IQ but concluded Hill was competent.
- Trial counsel stated Hill could communicate, understood what was happening, assisted in preparing the defense, and could discuss case strategy.
- During the penalty phase at trial, a psychologist testified, but the testimony did not include a finding that Hill was incompetent.
- As part of the postconviction proceedings, Hill was evaluated by two psychiatrists.
- Both psychiatrists concluded Hill understood the nature of the criminal case, had the capacity to assist counsel, and was in his right mind at the time of the murder.
- Hill’s postconviction attorney also testified that Hill understood the charges against him.
- The district court denied postconviction relief, and Hill appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether Hill proved ineffective assistance of counsel, under *Strickland v. Washington*, based on trial counsel’s failure to further investigate Hill’s competency to stand trial and failure to raise an insanity defense tied to Hill’s low IQ and background.
2. Whether the postconviction record showed a reasonable probability that additional competency litigation or an insanity defense would have changed the outcome at trial or sentencing.

## Decision

- The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order denying postconviction relief.
- The court held Hill failed to establish deficient performance because the evidence showed trial counsel had reason to view Hill as competent and able to assist in the defense.
- The court held Hill failed to establish prejudice because the postconviction psychiatric evaluations supported competency and did not support an insanity defense.
- The court concluded that Hill did not show a basis for relief tied to competency or insanity, given the consistent testimony that Hill understood the proceedings and could work with counsel.

## Legal Principles

- Ineffective assistance of counsel requires proof of (1) deficient performance falling below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) prejudice, meaning a reasonable probability of a different result absent counsel’s errors. *Strickland v. Washington*.
- Competency to stand trial turns on whether the defendant has a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings and can consult with counsel with a reasonable degree of rational understanding.
- Counsel is not ineffective for failing to raise a competency challenge or insanity defense when available evidence does not support those positions and later expert evaluations confirm competency and sanity at the time of the offense.
- In postconviction review, appellate courts give substantial deference to the district court’s supported factual findings and evaluations of witness testimony.

## Conclusion

The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Hill’s postconviction petition because the record supported the district court’s finding that Hill was competent, could assist counsel, and was in his right mind at the time of the offense; accordingly, Hill could not satisfy either the performance or prejudice prong required to prove ineffective assistance based on counsel’s decision not to pursue competency litigation or an insanity defense.


James Earl Hill v. Nevada, 953 P.2d 1077 (1998)