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 (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.