Olausen (John) v. State ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
    JOHN STEVEN OLAUSEN,                                 /No. 69576
    Appellant,
    vs.
    THE STATE OF NEVADA,
    Respondent
    JOHN STEVEN OLAUSEN,                                   No. 69652
    Appellant,
    vs.
    THE STATE OF NEVADA,
    Respondent
    JOHN STEVEN OLAUSEN,                                   No. 69653
    vs.
    Appellant,                                       FILED
    THE STATE OF NEVADA,                                                 APR 0 1 2016
    Respondent
    ORDER DISMISSING APPEALS
    These are pro se appeals from district court orders denying a
    motion for appointment of counsel, directing entry of judgment of
    conviction as to Counts II and III, denying a motion to reconsider and to
    amend order, granting State's motion to correct clerical error, denying a
    cross-motion to correct clerical error, and the judgment of conviction as to
    counts II and III entered May 27, 2015, nunc pro tunc to December 14,
    1979. Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Connie J.
    Steinheimer, Judge.
    Our review of these appeals reveals jurisdictional defects.
    Specifically, the orders denying a motion to appoint counsel, directing
    entry of judgment of conviction, denying a motion to reconsider and amend
    order, and granting motion to correct clerical error and denying cross-
    motion to correct clerical error are not substantively appealable.     Castillo
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    (0) I947A
    v. State, 
    106 Nev. 349
    , 352, 
    792 P.2d 1133
    , 1135 (1990) (right to appeal is
    statutory; where no statute or court rule provides for an appeal, no right to
    appeal exists); Phelps v. State, 
    111 Nev. 1021
    , 1022, 
    900 P.2d 344
    , 345
    (1995) (no statute or court rule provides for an appeal from an order
    denying a motion for reconsideration). To the extent that appellant
    appeals from the judgment of conviction entered on May 27, 2015, the
    notice of appeal is untimely filed." An order entered nunc pro tune has
    retroactive effect to the date specified, which is December 14, 1979, in this
    case. An untimely notice of appeal fails to vest jurisdiction in this court.
    Lozada v. State, 
    110 Nev. 349
    , 352, 
    871 P.2d 944
    (1994). Accordingly, we
    lack jurisdiction to consider these appeals, and we
    ORDER these appeals DISMISSED.'
    J.
    Douglas
    Gibbo24‘-.41.1
    'Appellant has already appealed from the validity of his guilty plea
    in Wilson v. State, 
    99 Nev. 362
    , 
    664 P.2d 328
    (1983), and the guilt-phase of
    the proceedings was final with the conclusion of his direct appeal
    proceedings and the expiration of the period to seek a petition for
    certiorari to the Supreme Court. Entry of a new judgment of conviction is
    not intended to serve as a basis for a second direct appeal, which is not
    permitted, or to restart the clock to file a post-conviction petition for a writ
    of habeas corpus in view of the fact that appellant has already litigated or
    had an opportunity to litigate the guilt phase of his conviction over the
    decades since his conviction was final.
    'In light of this order, the pro se motions to consolidate appeals filed
    in Docket Nos. 69652 and 69653 are denied as moot.
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    2
    (0) 1947A    e
    cc:   Hon. Connie J. Steinheimer, District Judge
    John Steven Olausen
    Attorney General/Carson City
    Washoe County District Attorney
    Washoe District Court Clerk
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    (0) 1947A 4r0
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 69576

Filed Date: 4/1/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021