Opinion
No. 86228-COA
12-08-2023
Ryan Ross MCKENDRY-VERHUNCE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent.
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
Our review of this appeal reveals a jurisdictional defect. The February 17, 2023, district court order purportedly denying McKendry-Verhunce's petition is not a final order because it does not resolve all of the claims raised in his supplemental petition. See Sandstrom v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 121 Nev. 657, 659, 119 P.3d 1250, 1252 (2005) ("[A] final order [is] one that disposes of all issues and leaves nothing for future consideration."). Specifically, the district court's order fails to address McKendry-Verhunce's claim that trial-level counsel had two actual conflicts of interest: (1) that she represented one of the victims at a bail/arraignment hearing during the pendency of this case; and (2) that the office she works for, the Washoe County Public Defenders Office, represented the other victim at the same time counsel was representing McKendry-Verhunce. Because this claim was not addressed by the district court's order, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal. See NRS 177.015(3). Accordingly, we
ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.