Pool (Tyler) v. Dist. Ct. (State)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
TYLER DAVID POOL, No. 85571
Petitioner,
vs. FILED
THE SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF NOV 5 20li
HUMBOLDT; AND THE HONORABLE .TH EVR.01.q.11
CL 'UP 'ME:: COURT
MICHAEL MONTERO, DISTRICT
13
JUDGE,
Respondents,
and
THE STATE OF NEVADA,
Real Party in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION
This original petition for a writ of mandamus or, in the
alternative, prohibition challenges the district court's jurisdiction to enter
a scheduling order following the State's filing of a notice of appeal in both
the justice court and the district court.
A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of
an act that the law requires .. . or to control an arbitrary or capricious
exercise of discretion." Intl Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court,
124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008); see NRS 34.160.
A writ of prohibition "arrests the proceedings of any tribunal,
corporation, board or person exercising judicial functions, when such
proceedings are without or in excess of the jurisdiction of such tribunal,
corporation, board or person." NRS 34.320.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
10) 1,47A ..14DP 55-9 Z3
A writ is an extraordinary remedy, and whether a petition for
extraordinary relief will be considered is solely within this court's
discretion. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679,
818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991). Petitioner bears the burden to show that
extraordinary relief is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist, Court,
120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).
Having considered the petition and documents submitted in
support thereof, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention
is warranted. Petitioner has not demonstrated that the district court failed
to perform an act the law requires or arbitrarily or capriciously abused its
discretion, Int'l Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 558, nor has he
demonstrated that the district court acted in excess of its jurisdiction, NRS
34.320.
The State appropriately filed a notice of appeal in the justice
court challenging that court's granting of petitioner's motion to suppress.
See generally NRS 189.020 ("The party intending to appeal must file with
the justice . . . a notice entitled in the action, setting forth the character of
the judgment, and the intention of the party to appeal therefrom to the
district court.").
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
( I./47A •::Wu.,
Petitioner points to no case law or statute that supports the
argument that the State filing an additional and superfluous notice of
appeal in the district court to appeal a justice court's suppression decision
would deprive the district court of its appellate jurisdiction. NRS 189.120(1)
("The State rnay appeal to the district court from an order of a justice court
granting the motion of a defendant to suppress evidence."). Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
, C.J.
J.
Hardesty
, J.
Stiglich
cc: Hon. Michael Montero, District Judge
Humboldt County Public Defender
Attorney General/Carson City
Humboldt County District Attorney
Humboldt County Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
( 01 I947A •