Santiago (Paul) v. State

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 guilty plea with a potentially complex issue surrounding the advice of court-appointed counsel regarding appellant's ability to withdraw his guilty plea post- sentencing. 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. 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. 2

Pickering

Parraguirre

6:5,24il, J. Saitta

2We have considered all proper person documents filed or received in this matter. We conclude that appellant is only entitled to the relief described herein.

SUPREME COURT

OF

NEVADA (0) 1947A cc: Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, District Judge Paul Santiago

Attorney General/Carson City

Clark County District Attorney

Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF

NEVADA (0) I 9474 Att.