LORENZO BATTLES v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2026)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

This is an appeal from an August 13, 2025, district court order denying a motion for reconsideration of an order denying a motion to modify sentence. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Crystal Eller, Judge.

The district court entered an order denying appellant's motion to modify sentence on December 31, 2024. On July 8, 2025, appellant filed a motion to reconsider the December 31 order. In the August 13, 2025, order challenged on appeal, the district court indicates that it was treating the motion as a motion to clarify and denies the motion. Because no statute or court rule appears to provide for an appeal from an order denying a motion to reconsider or a motion to clarify, see Castillo v. State, 106 Nev. 349, 352-53, 792 P.2d 1133, 1135 (1990) (this court may consider appeals only when authorized by statute or court rule), and the notice of appeal was untimely filed from the December 31, 2024, order denying the motion to modify, see NRAP 4(b)(1)(A) (providing that a notice of appeal must generally be filed within 30 days after entry of the order being appealed), this court ordered appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Appellant asserts in response that this is an appeal from an order denying a motion to modify sentence, and an order denying a motion to modify sentence is substantively appealable. However, appellant's notice of appeal identifies the district court's August 13, 2025, order denying the motion for reconsideration or clarification of the order denying the motion to modify, not the December 31, 2024, order denying motion to modify. Appellant does not address the appealability of an order denying a motion for reconsideration or clarification, or the timeliness of the notice of appeal with respect to the order denying the motion to modify. Respondent's reply argues that the order denying appellant's motion to modify sentence is not substantively appealable.¹

Appellant does not demonstrate that any statute or court rule authorizes an appeal from a district court order denying a motion for reconsideration or clarification of an order denying a motion to modify a sentence. Appellant also fails to demonstrate that his notice of appeal, filed in the district court on September 17, 2025, was timely filed from entry of the December 31, 2024, order denying the motion to modify. We therefore conclude that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal and ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.

Stiglich, J.

Cadish, J.

Lee, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Appellant's motion for leave to file a sur-reply to respondent's reply is denied.