denying it without prejudice. See NRS 34.830(2). Therefore, the district court erred in denying the petition without prejudice.

In addition, the district court erred by denying appellant's request for the appointment of post-conviction counsel. NRS 34.750 provides for the discretionary appointment of post-conviction counsel and sets forth the following factors which the court may consider in making its determination to appoint counsel: the petitioner's indigency, the severity of the consequences to the petitioner, the difficulty of those issues presented, whether the petitioner is unable to 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 is serving a significant sentence. Appellant moved for the appointment of counsel and claimed that he was indigent.

In addition, a Russian language interpreter was present to help appellant throughout the trial proceedings, indicating that appellant is unable to comprehend the proceedings on his own. The failure to appoint post- conviction counsel prevented a meaningful litigation of the petition, particularly in light of the difficulties demonstrated by appellant's language barrier. 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

SUPREME COUFtT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A '910149 ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with this order. 2

, J.

Hardesty

, J.

J.

Cherry

cc: Hon. Jessie Elizabeth Walsh, District Judge Vladimir Lagerev Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

We have considered all proper person documents filed or received in this matter. We conclude that appellant is only entitled to the relief described herein. This order constitutes our final disposition of this appeal. Any subsequent appeal shall be docketed as a new matter.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A ce