Abarca (Ivan) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: September 9, 2021
• Docket: 83427
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

IVAN ABARCA, No. 83427 Petitioner, vs. THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT FILE COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ELKO, SEP fl 9 2021 Respondent, rH A ERrivvr4 REmE COURT and THE STATE OF NEVADA, D[Ïfry CLERK

Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus/prohibition seeking to compel the district court to resentence petitioner to concurrent as opposed to consecutive sentences. Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. See NRS 34.170; NRS 34.320; Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (observing that "the issuance of a writ of mandamus or prohibition is purely discretionary with this court"). Problematically, petitioner has not provided this court with exhibits or other documentation that would support his claims for relief. See NRAP 21(a)(4) (providing the petitioner shall submit an appendix containing all documents "essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition"). Moreover, to the extent petitioner asserts ineffective assistance of counsel claims, we note that such claims are appropriately raised in a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in the district court

SUPREME COURT in the first instance so that factual and legal issues are fully developed, OF NEVADA

( 0) 1947A Z giving this court an adequate record to review. See NRAP 22 ("An application for an original writ of habeas corpus should be made to the appropriate district court. If an application is made to the district court and denied, the proper remedy is by appeal from the district court's order denying the writ."); Round Hill Gen. Imp. Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 604, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981) (recognizing that "an appellate court is not an appropriate forum in which to resolve disputed questions of fact"); State v. Cty. of Douglas, 90 Nev. 272, 276-77, 524 P.2d 1271, 1274 (1974) (noting that "this court prefers that such an application [for writ relief] be addressed to the discretion of the appropriate district coure in the first instance), abrogated on other grounds by Attorney Gen. v. Gypsum Res., 129 Nev. 23, 33-34, 294 P.3d 404, 410-11 (2013). Therefore, without deciding the merits of the claims raised, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction in this matter, see NRAP 21(b). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

, CJ Hardesty

Parraguirre

Al4c44...0 Stiglich

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(01 I947A

9, cc: Ivan Abarca Attorney General/Carson City Elko County District Attorney Elko County Clerk

ro) 1947A ,,e4r4D