Clark (Matthew) v. State
This text of Clark (Matthew) v. State (Clark (Matthew) v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
MATTHEW JUSTIN CLARK,
vs. Appellant, N IFICE D THE STATE OF NEVADA, JUN 2 6 2017 Respondent. EIJZABE714 A. BROWN CLER1f qUPREME COURT BY DEPUTY CLERK ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD AND DISMISSING APPEAL
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction. Tenth Judicial District Court, Churchill County; Robert E. Estes, Judge. Counsel for appellant, Charles B. Woodman, has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel of record for appellant. In support of the motion, Mr. Woodman states that appellant has been released from prison, and although he has attempted to contact appellant on multiple occasions, he has not been successful. Mr. Woodman asserts that he is unable to prosecute this appeal absent appellant's assistance. The decision as to what claims to raise on appeal resides within counsel's professional judgment. Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 751-54 (1983). And this court's review is limited to the record made in and considered by the district court. Carson Ready Mix v. First Nat'l Bank, 97 Nev. 474, 476, 635 P.2d 276, 277 (1981). Thus, appellant's participation is not absolutely necessary for the prosecution of this appeal. Nevertheless, the circumstances presented indicate that appellant may not be interested in pursuing this appeal. Accordingly, we grant the motion to withdraw
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A e 17-Z11.50 and dismiss this appeal.' NRAP 46(d)(3). The clerk of this court shall remove Mr. Woodman and The Law Offices of Charles B. Woodman as counsel of record for appellant in this appeal. The dismissal is without prejudice to appellant's ability to reopen this appeal if appellant files in this court, within 30 days of the date of this order, a document indicating that he is interested in proceeding with the appeal. If, after 30 days, appellant has failed to file such a document, the remittitur shall issue forthwith. It is so ORDERED.
_ e,64,2\
_114, Hardesty
J. Parraguititar
A4LcbG,..0 J. Stiglich
cc: Chief Judge, The Tenth Judicial District Hon. Robert E. Estes, Senior Judge Charles B. Woodman Attorney General/Carson City Churchill County District Attorney/Fallon Churchill County Clerk Matthew Justin Clark
'We take no action on counsel's motion for an extension of time to file the opening brief and appendix.
10) 1947A e
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Clark (Matthew) v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-matthew-v-state-nev-2017.