Opinion
No. 59601.
06-14-2012
James LALL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent.
James Lall Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney
James Lall
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
ORDER OF REVERSAL AND REMAND
This is a proper person appeal from an order of the district court denying a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus . Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Joseph T. Bonaventure, Senior Judge.
This appeal has been submitted for decision without oral argument, NRAP 34(f)(3), and we conclude that the record is sufficient for our review and briefing is unwarranted. See Luckett v. Warden, 91 Nev. 681, 682, 541 P.2d 910, 911(1975).
Appellant filed a timely petition on March 18, 2011. The district court denied the petition without appointing counsel. We conclude that the district court erred in denying the petition without appointing counsel for the reasons discussed below.
NRS 34.750 provides for the discretionary appointment of post-conviction counsel and sets forth the following factors which the court may consider in making its determination to appoint counsel: the petitioner's indigency, the severity of the consequences to the petitioner, the difficulty of those issues presented, whether the petitioner is unable to comprehend the proceedings, and whether counsel is necessary to proceed with discovery. The determination of whether counsel should be appointed is not necessarily dependent upon whether a petitioner raises issues in a petition which, if true, would entitle the petitioner to relief.
Appellant's petition arose out of a trial with potentially complex issues, including double jeopardy and redundancy issues. Appellant also raised claims relating to a failure to adequately investigate that may require factual development outside the record. Appellant is serving a significant sentence. In addition, appellant moved for the appointment of counsel and claimed that he was indigent. The failure to appoint post-conviction counsel prevented a meaningful litigation of the petition. Thus, we reverse the district court's denial of appellant's petition and remand this matter for the appointment of counsel to assist appellant in the post-conviction proceedings. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with this order.
We have considered all proper person documents filed or received in this matter. We conclude that appellant is only entitled to the relief described herein.