Estrada, Jr. (Frank) v. State

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.