Masters (Joshua) v. Dist. Ct. (City of Las Vegas) C/W 69602

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
JOSHUA MASTERS, No. 69582
Petitioner,
vs.
THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, FILED
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF
CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE ROB
MAR 17 2016
BARE, DISTRICT JUDGE, TRADE K. LrILDEVAN
CLERK OF 'UPREME COURT
Respondents,
DEPUTY CLERK
and
CITY OF LAS VEGAS,
Real Party in Interest.
JOSHUA LEE MASTERS, No. 69602
Appellant,
vs.
CITY OF LAS VEGAS,
Respondent.
ORDER DENYING PETITION (DOCKET NO. 69582) AND
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL (DOCKET NO. 69602)
Docket No. 69582 is an original petition for a writ of habeas
corpus challenging the constitutionality of NRS 484C.110. Docket No.
69602 is an appeal from a district court order affirming a misdemeanor
conviction. We elect to consolidate these cases for disposition.
Docket No. 69582
Joshua Masters did not submit an appendix with his petition.
See NRAP 21(a)(4), (c); see also Dir., Nev. Dep't of Prisons v. Arndt, 98 Nev.
84, 85-86, 640 P.2d 1318, 1319 (1982) (recognizing the writ of habeas
corpus as an extraordinary writ). Thus, he has failed to demonstrate that
he is entitled to relief.
Moreover, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus will not issue
when an adequate remedy exists, save for extraordinary circumstances.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) I947A
ar,
See City of Reno v. Forrest, 87 Nev. 6, 8-9, 479 P.2d 465, 466 (1971).
Masters appears to have an adequate remedy at law, see NRS 34.020(3);
Stilwell v. City of N. Las Vegas, 129 Nev., Adv. Op. 76, 311 P.3d 1177,
1178-79 (2013), and he fails to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances
warranting our intervention.
Furthermore, Master's underlying argument is premised on
there being two versions of NRS 484C.110 currently in effect. This is a
meritless argument. While two NRS 484C.110 statutes are currently
listed, each contains an effective date in the title, ensuring that the
statutes cannot simultaneously be in effect.' See Minor Girl v. Clark Cty.
Juvenile Court Servs., 87 Nev. 544, 548, 490 P.2d 1248, 1250 (1971).
Accordingly, we deny the petition. 2
Docket No. 69602
As to the appeal in Docket No. 69602, we lack jurisdiction
because Master's case arose in the municipal court and the district court
has final appellate jurisdiction over a case arising in the municipal court.
Nev. Const. art. 6, § 6; NRS 5.073(1); NRS 266.565(1); NRS 266.595; Tripp
'The first NRS 484C.110 states that it is "[e]ffective until the date of
the repeal of the federal law requiring each state to make it unlawful for a
person to operate a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of
0.08 percent or greater as a condition to receiving federal funding for the
construction of' highways in this State," while the second NRS 484C.110
states that is leiffective on the date of the repeal of the federal law."
(Emphasis added).
2 We deny Master's motion to withdraw the petition.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A <1lietikf0
v. City of Sparks, 92 Nev. 362, 363, 550 P.2d 419,419 (1976). Accordingly,
we dismiss the appeal in Docket No. 69602. 3
It is so ORDERED.
/±. J.
Hardest„y___Hi
----(S
).
J.
sartt‘.
qt. J.
Pickering
cc: Hon. Rob Bare, District Judge
Mueller Hinds & Associates
Las Vegas City Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
3 In
his response to the order to showS cause, Masters stipulated to
the dismissal of the appeal.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
((I) 1947A eo