Olausen (John) v. State ( 2016 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
JOHN STEVEN OLAUSEN, No. 69576
Appellant,
vs,
THE STATE OF NEVADA,
Respondent.
JOHN STEVEN OLAUSEN, 69652
Appellant,
vs.
THE STATE OF NEVADA,
Respondent.
JOHN STEVEN OLAUSEN,
Appellant, No 6965 F 1LED
vs.
THE STATE OF NEVADA, APR 0 1 2016
Responden
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 tune 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
A'61#0.trIn5
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 tunc 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. 2
J.
Douglas
'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.
2 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
(0) I 947(‘
2
kiTZ-Wfir.‘"%1/4 43 EuNga 0=E22 ENZINCIER
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
Un) lq47A
3
=MEM IMMETi