Jordon v. Housewright, 15987
| Decision Date | 19 March 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 15987,15987 |
| Citation | 101 Nev. 146,696 P.2d 998 |
| Parties | Victor Jay JORDON, Appellant, v. Vernon G. HOUSEWRIGHT, Director of the Nevada Department of Prisons, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Appellant, a prisoner at the Nevada State Prison in Carson City, filed a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the First Judicial District Court. On July 2, 1984, a hearing was held at which the district court orally denied the petition and directed respondent's attorney to prepare a written order. The written order denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus was entered on July 10, 1984, and respondent mailed written notice of entry of the order to appellant's counsel on July 13, 1984. The notice of appeal was filed July 31, 1984, twenty-one days after entry of the order denying appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Under NRS 34.380(3), an appeal from an order of the district court denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus "must be made within 15 days after the day of entry of the order or judgment." On December 12, 1984, we ordered appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to the untimeliness of the notice of appeal. In response to our order, appellant primarily contends that the 15-day time period for filing the notice of appeal under NRS 34.380 began to run the date he was served with written notice of entry of the order, rather than the date of entry of the order denying the petition. Additionally, appellant argues that he had three additional days to file the notice of appeal pursuant to NRAP 26(c) because written notice of entry of the order was served upon him by mail. 1 Cf. NRAP 4(a) (). Thus, according to appellant, he had 18 days from July 13, 1984, the date he was served with written notice of entry of the lower court's order, within which to file his notice of appeal. Because his appeal was filed within 18 days from that date, appellant concludes that his appeal was timely filed. This argument is without merit.
In Hill v. Warden, 96 Nev. 38, 604 P.2d 807 (1980), we recognized that habeas corpus is a special statutory remedy which cannot be classified as either civil or criminal for all purposes. NRS 34.380(3) provides a specific time period for taking an appeal from an order or judgment of the district court denying an application for a writ of habeas corpus. The statute allows a fifteen...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lozada v. State
...consistently held that an untimely notice of appeal fails to vest jurisdiction in this court. See, e.g., Jordon v. Director, Dep't of Prisons, 101 Nev. 146, 696 P.2d 998 (1985). We must, therefore, dismiss Lozada's appeal for lack of In light of the Ninth Circuit's failure to recognize the ......
-
Klein v. Warden
...refusing to change the place of trial of civil actions do not apply to post-conviction habeas proceedings); Jordon v. Director, Dep't of Prisons, 101 Nev. 146, 696 P.2d 998 (1985) (refusing to apply certain civil rules relating to filing of notices of appeal to post-conviction habeas procee......
-
Mazzan v. State
...governing habeas proceedings have not addressed the issue presented. Such is not the case here. In Jordon v. Director, Dep't of Prisons, 101 Nev. 146, 147-48, 696 P.2d 998, 998-99 (1985), the appellant argued that the notice-of-entry provisions of NRAP 4(a) as well as the three-days-for-mai......
-
Edwards v. State
...Nev. 309, 756 P.2d 1191 (1988). The timely filing of a notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional. See Jordon v. Director, Dep't of Prisons, 101 Nev. 146, 696 P.2d 998 (1985). Appellant's notice of appeal was not filed within the time limit prescribed by NRAP 4(b). We conclude, theref......