Duncan (Matrell) v. State

 entered. Appellant does not assert that the order clarifying the probation
revocation order is independently appealable.
The notice of appeal was filed in the district court on February
12, 2014, almost 18 months after the order for revocation of probation and
amended judgment of conviction was filed in the district court. The notice
of appeal was thus filed well after the 30-day appeal period provided by
NRAP 4(b)(1)(A). Appellant cites no authority in support of, and we reject,
his argument that the clarification order restarted the appeal period.
To the extent appellant contends that the clarification order
merely supplemented the order revoking probation and amended
judgment of conviction and this appeal is a continuation of the prior
appeal from that order, we disagree because our July 22, 2013, order of
reversal and remand constituted the final resolution of that appeal. With
entry of that order, there was no enforceable order revoking probation and
amended judgment of conviction. See Schwabacher and Co. v. Zobrist, 97
Nev. 97, 98, 625 P.2d 82, 82 (1981); see also, e.g., Smith v. Smith, 118 So.
2d 204, 205-06 (Fla. 1960); Moore v. N. Am. Van Lines, 462 S.E.2d 275,
276 (S.C. 1995).
Because the notice of appeal was untimely filed from the order
revoking probation and amended judgment of conviction, and no statute or
court rule allows an appeal from an order clarifying probation revocation,
we conclude that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, see Lozada v. State,
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
110 Nev. 349, 352, 871 P.2d 944, 946 (1994); Castillo v. State, 106 Nev.
349, 352, 792 P.2d 1133, 1135 (1990), and
ORDER this appeal DISMISSED. 1
Hardesty
J.
Douglas
cc: Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge
Lambrose Brown
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
Matrell Keshun Duncan
'In light of this order, appellant's motion to supplement the record
on appeal is denied as moot.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A