Andersen (Christopher) v. Dist. Ct. (City Of Las Vegas) ( 2022 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
CHRISTOPHER ANDERSEN, No. 82773
Petitioner,
vs.
THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF
FILED
CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE MAR 0 9 2022
CRYSTAL ELLER, DISTRICT JUDGE,
ELIZABETH A. BROWN
Respondents, CLERK g SU ME COURT
BY
and DEPUTY CLERK
CITY OF LAS VEGAS,
Real Party in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus challenging
the district court's order of reversal and remand to the municipal court in a
criminal battery constituting domestic violence case.
This petition is a sequel to our decision in Andersen v. Eighth
Judicial District Court, 135 Nev. 321, 322-24, 324, 448 P.3d 1120, 1122-23,
1124 (2019) (Andersen 1), in which we held that a misdemeanor battery
constituting domestic violence (BDV) charge under NRS 200A85(1)(a) is a
"serious offense" that entitles the accused to a jury trial. Despite having
secured a jury trial from this court in Andersen I, on returning to municipal
court, petitioner Christopher Andersen challenged the municipal court's
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
t(>) 1947A diltAt)
- 07543
jurisdiction to hold that jury trial, arguing that it did not have statutory
authority to do so. The municipal court agreed with Andersen that it lacked
jurisdiction to hold a jury trial, but further held it could not transfer the
case to justice court prior to trial, there being no final disposition or plea
agreement. See NRS 5.0503(2) (prohibiting a municipal court from
transferring a case absent a final disposition or plea). So, the municipal
court concluded that it was in jurisdictional "limbo" and dismissed
Andersen's charges. The state appealed the dismissal to the district court,
which reversed and remanded the case, again, to municipal court to hold a
jury trial. Andersen now petitions for a writ of mandamus, asking this court
to compel the district court to affirm the municipal court's order and dismiss
the charges against him for lack of jurisdiction.
During the pendency of this action, the Nevada legislature
passed, and the governor signed, A.B. 42, which expressly authorizes the
municipal court to hold a jury trial for "any matter" within its jurisdiction,
which includes a misdemeanor BDV offense. A.B. 42, 81'a Leg. (Nev. 2021);
see also NRS 5.050(2). The bill became effective on January 1, 2022 and
applies to offenses committed before that date if they are "pending or
otherwise unresolved on January 1, 2022." A.B. 42, 814 Leg. Andersen's
case is unresolved as of the effective date; the bill therefore applies and
empowers the municipal court to conduct a jury trial in this case.
We therefore conclude that the petition is moot. Personhood
Nev. u. Bristol, 126 Nev. 599, 602, 245 P.3d 572, 574 (2010) (holding that
later events may render a once-live controversy moot). The jury trial
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
1111 1947A .1111P).
Andersen asked this court to mandate in Andersen I should proceed.
Accordingly we,
ORDER the petition DENIED.
Parraguirre
k 4, .19_, .‘. , J.
/...,_(,_ta..z..4._,,,.._„ , J.
Hardesty Stiglich
Li1;44,eAD, J.
Cadish Silver
Piektt„Ar
P j.
Pickering Herndon
cc: Hon. Crystal Eller, District Judge
The Pariente Law Firm, P.C.
Attorney General/Carson City
Las Vegas City Attorney
Robert E. Anderlik
Henderson City Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
E07 1447A 4W.:40