KELLER v. STATE (2021)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Our review of this appeal reveals a jurisdictional defect. The November 20, 2020, order purportedly denying Keller's petition and supplemental pleading did not resolve all of the claims Keller raised. Specifically, the order did not address the following ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims: whether counsel should have objected to Keller's consecutive habitual-criminal sentence; whether trial counsel should have objected to the use of Keller's prior felonies; whether trial counsel should have impeached Officer Lopez with prior inconsistent statements; whether trial counsel should have filed a motion to dismiss Keller's case and requested an evidentiary hearing; whether trial counsel should have considered the importance of the “owe sheets” as evidence; and whether trial counsel was ineffective for advising Keller he would lose his right to appeal if he pleaded guilty.¹

Additionally, the order did not address whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the following claims: whether Keller's consecutive habitual-criminal sentence was illegal; whether the search of Keller's vehicle violated his 4th Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure; whether the three-hour delay between Keller's apprehension and officers obtaining a search warrant made the vehicle stop invalid; whether the district court erred in allowing the State to proceed despite the destroyed or lost body camera footage; whether the district court erred by allowing Officer Lopez's testimony; and whether the district court erred by failing to continue the case to allow Keller to retain new counsel. The order was thus not a final order. See Sandstrom v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 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 177.015(3), and we

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.

Attachment

FOOTNOTES

1.   The district court should also reduce to writing its oral disposition regarding Keller's claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel as to the body camera footage.