Case Information: 88472
Short Caption:	TAYLOR (ISIAH) VS. STATE	Court:	Supreme Court
		Related Case(s):	83709, 83709-COA, 88468, 88802, 88819, 88819-COA, 88859, 89055, 89105, 89105-COA, 89106
Lower Court Case(s):	Clark Co. - Eighth Judicial District - C348230	Classification:	Criminal Appeal - Other - Post-Conviction/Proper Person
Disqualifications:		Case Status:	Remittitur Issued/Case Closed
Replacement:		Panel Assigned:	Panel
To SP/Judge:		SP Status:
Oral Argument:		Oral Argument Location:
Submission Date:		How Submitted:

+ Party Information
Role	Party Name	Represented By
Appellant	Isiah M. Taylor	In Proper Person
Respondent	The State of Nevada	Alexander G. Chen (Clark County District Attorney) Aaron D. Ford (Attorney General/Carson City)

Docket Entries
Date	Type	Description	Pending?	Document
04/15/2024	Filing Fee	Appeal Filing Fee Waived. Criminal. (SC)
04/15/2024	Notice of Appeal Documents	Filed Notice of Appeal/Proper Person. Appeal docketed in the Supreme Court this day. (C348230). (SC)		24-12996
04/16/2024	Notice of Appeal Documents	Filed District Court Minutes Addendum to Notice of Appeal filed 04/08/2024 - C348230 (SC)		24-13224
04/26/2024	Order/Dispositional	Filed Order Dismissing Appeal. "ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED." B24-LS/KP/RP (SC)		24-14653
05/07/2024	Other	Returned Unfiled Document(Informal Brief)(SC)		24-16017
05/21/2024	Remittitur	Issued Remittitur. (SC)		24-17811
05/21/2024	Case Status Update	Remittitur Issued/Case Closed.(SC)
05/29/2024	Remittitur	Filed Remittitur. Received by District Court Clerk on 5/22/24. (SC)		24-17811
06/06/2024	Motion	Filed Motion to Recall Remittitur (SC)		24-19895
06/24/2024	Order/Procedural	Filed Order Denying Motion to Recall Remittitur. A three-judge panel dismissed this appeal for lack of jurisdiction on April 26, 2024. On May 21, the remittitur issued in the normal course. Appellant's pro se motion to recall the remittitur followed. Appellant "questions why a remittitur would be issued when the clerk was in possession of a motion for rehearing en banc." Appellant asserts that he received a letter from this court regarding the filing of a "motion for rehearing en banc" on May 22, 2024, even though the motion was stamped as received on May 20. It does not appear from the docket in this case that appellant filed a petition for rehearing. This court notes, however, that appellant filed a "request for rehearing en banc" in Docket No. 88468, which was marked received on May 20 and file stamped on May 22. Rehearing was denied in Docket No. 88468 on June 3. Accordingly, appellant's motion to recall the remittitur is denied. (SC)		24-21783