Bowles (Travis) v. The Second Judicial Dist. Ct.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
TRAVIS WILFORD BOWLES, No. 85448
Petitioner,
vs.
THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,
LED
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF OCT 1 3 2022
WASHOE; AND THE HONORABLE
CONNIE J. STEINHEIMER, DISTRICT
JUDGE,
Respondents.
ORDER DENYING PETITION
This is an original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus or in
the alternative to show cause per NRS 34.160 et. seq. seeking to compel the
district court to reinstate his postconviction petition for a writ of habeas
corpus.
Petitioner was convicted in 2012 of six counts of lewdness with
a child under the age of 14 years. In 2013, petitioner filed in the district
court a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and in 2015, petitioner
supplemented his petition. The State moved to dismiss the petition and
supplemented petition, and in 2016, after holding a hearing on the motion,
the district court dismissed petitioner's habeas action. The district court
order of dismissal indicates that the district court considered petitioner's
claims for relief and determined that they did not warrant an evidentiary
hearing. Petitioner now seeks a writ from this court directing the district
court to reinstate his habeas action.
This court has original jurisdiction to issue writ of mandamus,
and the issuance of such extraordinary relief is within this court's sole
SUPREME COURT discretion. D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468,
OF
NEVADA
z 351
474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). A writ of mandamus is available to
compel the performance of an act which the law requires as a duty resulting
from an office, trust, or station. NRS 34.160. Petitioner bears the burden
of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth
Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841. 844 (2004).
Having considered the petition, we conclude that our
extraordinary relief is not warranted. A district court's dismissal of a
postconviction habeas petition without an evidentiary hearing is not
procedurally improper, NRS 34.770(2) ("If the judge or justice determines
that the petitioner is not entitled to relief and an evidentiary hearing is not
required, the judge or justice shall dismiss the petition without a hearing."),
and the challenged district court order expressly determined that no
evidentiary hearing was warranted. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate
that the district court's determination was improper or that petitioner's
habeas petition should be reinstated. See NRS 34.160. Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
C.J.
Parraguirre
J.
Hardesty
A/ksy;^-Q J.
Stiglich
cc: Hon. Connie J. Steinheirner, District Judge
SUPREME COURT
Travis Wilford Bowles
OF
NEVADA
Attorney General/Carson City
Washoe County District Attorney
Washoe District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
III) 104, A
3