comprehend the proceedings, and whether counsel is necessary to proceed
with discovery. The determination of whether counsel should be
appointed is not necessarily dependent upon whether a petitioner raises
issues in a petition which, if true, would entitle the petitioner to relief.
Appellant's petition arose out of a trial with potentially
complex issues. Appellant was represented by appointed counsel at trial.
Appellant is serving a significant sentence. In addition, appellant moved
for the appointment of counsel and claimed that he was indigent. The
failure to appoint post-conviction counsel prevented a meaningful
litigation of the petition. We note that the victim's cause of death was a
particular point of contention at trial. Further development of claims
regarding the victim's cause of death and discovery of expert witnesses
related to medical evidence require investigation by post-conviction
counsel. Thus, we reverse the district court's denial of appellant's petition
and remand this matter for the appointment of counsel to assist appellant
in the post-conviction proceedings. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND
REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with
this order.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1.947A ater.
cc: Hon. Elizabeth Goff Gonzalez, District Judge
Frank Peter Estrada, Jr.
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA 3
(0) 1947A me.