Taitano (Ronald) v. Dist. Ct. (State) ( 2014 )

 Petitioner Ronald Taitano was tried and convicted of driving
under the influence. He was sentenced to a $585 fine, Victim Impact
Panel, DUI School, 24 hours of community service, and one session of
Alcoholics Anonymous per week for 90 days. On appeal, the district court
reversed his conviction based on error concerning the admission evidence
in violation of City of Reno v. Howard, 130 Nev. , 318 P.3d 1063 (2014),
and remanded the matter to the justice court for a new trial.
Because a petition for an extraordinary writ is addressed to
this court's sound discretion, Zamarripa v. First Judicial Dist. Court, 103
Nev. 638, 640, 747 P.2d 1386, 1387 (1987); State ex rel. Dep't of Transp. v.
Thompson, 99 Nev. 358, 360, 662 P.2d 1338, 1339 (1983); Poulos v. Eighth
Judicial Dist. Court, 98 Nev. 453, 455, 652 P.2d 1177, 1178 (1982), the
threshold issue is whether we should exercise that discretion and consider
the petition. Extraordinary relief may be appropriate where a tribunal,
board, or officer has exceeded its jurisdiction or acted in an arbitrary or
capricious manner, or such relief may be used to compel the performance
of an act required by law. See NRS 34.160; Zamarippa, 103 Nev. at 640,
747 P.2d at 1387; Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev.
601, 603-04, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981). This court will not entertain a
petition when the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at
law. NRS 34.020(2) (certiorari); NRS 34.170 (mandamus); NRS 34.330
...continued
and did not consider the constitutionality of the statute, we determine that
neither a writ of certiorari nor a writ of prohibition is the appropriate
mechanism for this matter.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) I947A
(prohibition). When exercising its discretion, this court may entertain
petitions for extraordinary relief when judicial economy and sound judicial
administration militate in favor of writ review. See State v. Babayan, 106
Nev. 155, 174, 787 P.2d 805, 819-20 (1990). Additionally, we may exercise
our discretion and entertain a writ petition when "an important issue of
law requires clarification." State v. Second Judicial Dist. Court
(Epperson), 120 Nev. 254, 258, 89 P.3d 663, 665-66 (2004) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Taitano contends that, as he has served the underlying
sentence, the district court should have reversed and vacated the
conviction. He asserts that the cost of defending another trial has a
chilling effect on the desire to participate in the appellate process and thus
violates due process. Further, judicial economy is served by not retrying
matters the legislature has deemed petty.
We conclude that writ review is unwarranted. Taitano
prevailed on appeal to the district court. His conviction was reversed and
his case was remanded to the justice court for a new trial. If he is tried
and convicted again, the punishment that he has already endured must be
credited against any new sentence imposed. North Carolina v. Pearce, 395
U.S. 711, 717-19 (1969), overruled on other grounds by Alabama v. Smith,
490 U.S. 794 (1989). Taitano failed to demonstrate that the district court's
decision to remand for a new trial to remedy the evidentiary error was
manifestly unreasonable, see Stephans v. State, 127 Nev. „ 262
P.3d 727, 734 (2011) (providing where evidence admitted at trial was
sufficient to sustain the conviction, the remedy for evidentiary error is
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A (442149)
reversal and remand for new trial), or an arbitrary or capricious exercise
of its discretion, see State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Armstrong), 127
Nev. , 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) ("An arbitrary or capricious
exercise of discretion is one founded on prejudice or preference rather than
on reason, or contrary to the evidence or established rules of law."
(quotation marks and citation omitted)). Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
Act, cs..4; , J.
Hardesty
J.
Douglas
C.-0641241, ,
Cherry
cc: Hon. Rob Bare, District Judge
Mueller Hinds & Associates
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A