WILLIE DARNELL MASON JR v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2026)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Willie Darnell Mason, Jr., appeals from a district court order purportedly denying a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed on April 11, 2018.¹ Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Kathleen E. Delaney, Judge.

Our review of this appeal reveals a jurisdictional defect. The June 21, 2024, order purportedly denying Mason's postconviction habeas petition did not resolve all of the claims raised below. Specifically, the order did not address the claims raised in Mason's pro se postconviction habeas petition filed on April 11, 2018, or the supplemental postconviction habeas petition filed by counsel on August 31, 2020. At a hearing on December 8, 2021, the district court specifically asked Mason whether his pro se second supplemental postconviction habeas petition was intended to “be the petition that we focus on ․ or is it your intention that this is just a piece of it and to be added to the prior petitions?” Mason responded that he intended the second supplemental petition to be considered in addition to the pro se postconviction habeas petition and supplemental postconviction habeas petition already filed. The district court then stated, “we'll look at the petitions as a whole.” However, in an order dated May 2, 2022, the district court stated that the “Court made clear [at the December 8, 2021, hearing], and Mason agreed, that the Second Supplemental Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus would supersede all prior petitions filed.” Thereafter, the district court treated the second supplemental postconviction habeas petition as the only petition before the court, and the order on appeal only addresses the claims raised in the second supplemental postconviction habeas petition.

We conclude the district court erred by only considering the second supplemental postconviction habeas petition. The district court's reasoning was based on an erroneous finding that Mason agreed the second supplemental postconviction habeas petition superseded the previous petitions. However, and as the record supports, Mason explicitly stated the second supplemental postconviction habeas petition should be considered in addition to his previously filed petitions, and the district court initially indicated its understanding of Mason's stance. Therefore, the district court's order resolving Mason's postconviction habeas petition should have considered all the claims raised in the pro se postconviction habeas petition, supplemental postconviction habeas petition, and second supplemental postconviction habeas petition. Because the district court failed to do so, we conclude the court's order was not a final order.  ² See Sandstrom v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 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.”). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal, see NRS 34,575(1); NRS 177.015(3), and we

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   A supplemental postconviction habeas petition was filed by counsel on August 31, 2020, and a second supplemental postconviction habeas petition was filed by Mason on November 17, 2021.

2.   We note the supreme court previously denied without prejudice the State's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Mason v. State, No. 89102 (Order Denying Motion to Dismiss, Sept. 17, 2025). For the reasons outlined above, we conclude we lack jurisdiction.