Duncan (Matrell) v. State

entered. Appellant does not assert that the order clarifying the probation revocation order is independently appealable. The notice of appeal was filed in the district court on February 12, 2014, almost 18 months after the order for revocation of probation and amended judgment of conviction was filed in the district court. The notice of appeal was thus filed well after the 30-day appeal period provided by NRAP 4(b)(1)(A). Appellant cites no authority in support of, and we reject, his argument that the clarification order restarted the appeal period. To the extent appellant contends that the clarification order merely supplemented the order revoking probation and amended judgment of conviction and this appeal is a continuation of the prior appeal from that order, we disagree because our July 22, 2013, order of reversal and remand constituted the final resolution of that appeal. With entry of that order, there was no enforceable order revoking probation and amended judgment of conviction. See Schwabacher and Co. v. Zobrist, 97 Nev. 97, 98, 625 P.2d 82, 82 (1981); see also, e.g., Smith v. Smith, 118 So. 2d 204, 205-06 (Fla. 1960); Moore v. N. Am. Van Lines, 462 S.E.2d 275, 276 (S.C. 1995). Because the notice of appeal was untimely filed from the order revoking probation and amended judgment of conviction, and no statute or court rule allows an appeal from an order clarifying probation revocation, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, see Lozada v. State, SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A 110 Nev. 349, 352, 871 P.2d 944, 946 (1994); Castillo v. State, 106 Nev. 349, 352, 792 P.2d 1133, 1135 (1990), and ORDER this appeal DISMISSED. 1 Hardesty J. Douglas cc: Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge Lambrose Brown Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk Matrell Keshun Duncan 'In light of this order, appellant's motion to supplement the record on appeal is denied as moot. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A