Oceja (Anthony) v. Dist. Ct. (State) ( 2022 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
ANTHONY OCEJA; AND LOREANA No. 84310
MARTINEZ,
Petitioners,
VS.
THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT FILE
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; NOV 3 0 2022
AND THE HONORABLE TIERRA
DANIELLE JONES, DISTRICT JUDGE,
BY
Respondents,
and
THE STATE OF NEVADA,
Real Party in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION
This original petition for a writ of mandamus seeks an order
directing the district court to grant a motion to strike animal cruelty
charges from the indictment pending against petitioners.
Traditionally, a writ of mandamus is available to compel the
performance of an act which the law requires as a duty resulting from an
office or to control a manifest abuse or arbitrary or capricious exercise of
discretion. NRS 34.160; Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 97
Nev. 601, 603-04, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981). A manifest abuse of discretion
occurs when there is a clearly erroneous interpretation or application of the
law, and "[a]n arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion is one founded
on prejudice or preference rather than reason, or contrary to the evidence
or established rules of law." State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court
(Armstrong), 127 Nev. 927, 931-32, 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted). It is within this court's discretion
whether to entertain a mandamus petition, Gathrite v. Eighth Judicial Dist.
SUPREME COURT Court, 135 Nev. 405, 407, 451 P.3d 891, 893 (2019).
OF
NEVADA
(0) I 947A
22-1koY
We are not convinced that our discretionary intervention is
warranted because petitioners have not demonstrated that the district
court manifestly abused or arbitrarily or capriciously exercised its
discretion in denying the motion to strike the animal cruelty counts. The
district court correctly determined that the petitioners' arguments
amounted to a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the
indictment and that such a challenge should have been made more than
three years earlier in a pretrial petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to NRS 34.700(1). See also NRS 174.105(1) (recognizing that challenges to
the sufficiency of the evidence to support an indictment are excepted from
the claims that can generally be raised in a motion before trial). Petitioners'
arguments to the contrary are not persuasive. Finally, petitioners did not
provide cogent argument that the State's alleged failure to follow housing
and disposal statutes relating to animal cruelty required the district court
to strike the animal cruelty charges. See Maresca v. State, 103 Nev. 669,
673, 748 P.2d 3, 6 (1987) ("It is [petitioners] responsibility to present
relevant authority and cogent argument; issues not so presented need not
be addressed by this court."). Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.1
J.
Pie,ku J. , Sr.J.
Pickering tly Gibbons
1The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the
SUPREME COURT decision of this matter under a general order of assignment.
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
cc: Hon. Tierra Danielle Jones, District Judge
David Schieck Law Office
Clark County Public Defender
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) I947A