Voss (Steven) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State) ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
    STEVEN FLOYD VOSS,                                      No. 83701
    Petitioner,
    vs.
    THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
    COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,                                 FILED
    IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF
    WASHOE,                                                       DEC 0 3 2021
    Respondent,                                                         A. BROWN
    CLE               COURT
    and
    ey
    THE STATE OF NEVADA,                                                CUERX
    Real Party in Interest.
    ORDER DENYING PETITION
    This original pro se petition for extraordinary writ relief seeks
    a writ of mandamus and a writ of habeas corpus directing the district court
    to vacate its Second Corrected Judgment of Conviction issued May 28, 2018.
    A writ of mandamus is available only when no plain, speedy,
    and adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of law, NRS 34.170, and
    this court has repeatedly held that an appeal is an adequate remedy at law
    that precludes writ relief. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 
    120 Nev. 222
    , 224, 
    88 P.3d 840
    , 841 (2004). It is petitioner's burden to demonstrate
    that extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan v. Dist. Court, 
    120 Nev. 222
    ,
    228, 
    88 P.3d 840
    , 844 (2004).
    Petitioner indicates that the district court previously denied his
    postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus but fails to indicate why
    an appeal from such denial does not constitute an adequate remedy at law.
    NRS 34.170. Further, a challenge to a judgment of conviction must be
    raised in a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in the
    district court in the first instance. See NRS 34.724; NRS 34.738; NRAP 22.
    Problematically, petitioner has not provided this court with a
    copy of a district court order denying him relief in the first instance, See
    NRAP 21(a)(4) (providing the petitioner shall submit an appendix
    containing all docunients "essential to understand the matters set forth in
    the petition").
    Therefore, without deciding the merits of the claims raised
    herein, we determine that our intervention is not warranted, see NRAP
    21(b): Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 
    120 Nev. 222
    , 228, 
    88 P.3d 840
    ,
    844 (2004) (Petitioned ] carr[ies] the burden of demonstrating that
    extraordinary relief is warranted."). Accordingly, we
    ORDER the petition DENIED.
    C.J.
    Hardesty
    -1144Ci-V            ,J.
    Parraguirre                                Stiglich
    cc:   Steven Floyd Voss
    Attorney General/Carson City
    Washoe County District Attorney
    Washoe District Court Clerk
    SUPREME     COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    (0) P47A    Rap
    2   '
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 83701

Filed Date: 12/3/2021

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/6/2021