TULY LEPOLO v. JEREMY BEAN WARDEN HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON AND THE STATE OF NEVADA (2025)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Tuly Lepolo appeals from a district court order denying a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed on October 30, 2024. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Jacqueline M. Bluth, Judge.

Our review of this appeal reveals a jurisdictional defect. Lepolo argues the district court's January 14, 2025, order purportedly denying Lepolo's petition did not resolve all his claims. Lepolo contends the order did not resolve his claims contained on pages 6F to 6N of his petition. Specifically, Lepolo contends the district court did not address his claims regarding (1) counsel's allegedly inadequate closing argument, including counsel's failure to address the assault with the use of a deadly weapon count; and (2) counsel's actions concerning Lepolo's waiver of a challenge to his police interview pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). We agree with Lepolo that the district court's order does not address all the claims raised. The order was thus not a final order. 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.¹

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We note that at times Lepolo's claims were difficult to parse. In light of this, and in light of arguments Lepolo raised in his motion for the appointment of counsel, the district court may reconsider whether the appointment of counsel is warranted. See NRS 34.750(1) (providing for the discretionary appointment of counsel for indigent petitioners under certain circumstances).