Alvarez (Edin) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)

Nevada Supreme Court

Alvarez (Edin) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)

DecidedJune 10, 2021

Docket82821

StatusPublished

This text of Alvarez (Edin) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State) (Alvarez (Edin) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alvarez (Edin) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State), (Neb. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

EDIN EDUARDO ALVAREZ, No. 82821 Petitioner, vs. THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, FILED IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF STOREY; AND THE HONORABLE JUN 1 0 2021 JAMES E. WILSON, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying a motion to reduce bail. We conclude that extraordinary relief is not warranted because petitioner has not met his substantial burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested. See NRS 34.160; Walker v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 136 Nev., Adv. Op. 80, 476 P.3d 1194, 1196 (2020) (recognizing petitioner's substantial burden to demonstrate a clear legal right to a particular course of action where the court is entrusted with discretion on the issue); Poulos v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 98 Nev. 453, 455, 652 P.2d 1177, 1178 (1982) (recognizing that it is within this court's discretion whether to issue a writ of mandamus); Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 603-04, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981) (recognizing that a writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an action which the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion). Here, the district court conducted a

SUPFIEME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A arek> hearing on the motion and entered written findings of fact and conclusions. See Valdez-Jimenez u. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 136 Nev. 155, 166, 460 P.3d 976, 987 (2020) (setting forth procedural due process requirements). In denying the motion, the district court considered the relevant statutory factors and nonrnonetary alternatives to bail. See id. at 164-65, 460 P.3d at 986. Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

(A)CfrA) J. Cadish

AcilepA (it! Pickering

J. Herndon

cc: Hon. James E. Wilson, District Judge State Public Defender/Carson City Attorney General/Carson City Storey County District Attorney Storey County Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 )) 1947A clir4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

EDIN EDUARDO ALVAREZ, No. 82821 Petitioner, vs. THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, FILED IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF STOREY; AND THE HONORABLE JUN 1 0 2021 JAMES E. WILSON, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying a motion to reduce bail. We conclude that extraordinary relief is not warranted because petitioner has not met his substantial burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested. See NRS 34.160; Walker v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 136 Nev., Adv. Op. 80, 476 P.3d 1194, 1196 (2020) (recognizing petitioner's substantial burden to demonstrate a clear legal right to a particular course of action where the court is entrusted with discretion on the issue); Poulos v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 98 Nev. 453, 455, 652 P.2d 1177, 1178 (1982) (recognizing that it is within this court's discretion whether to issue a writ of mandamus); Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 603-04, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981) (recognizing that a writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an action which the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion). Here, the district court conducted a

SUPFIEME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A arek> hearing on the motion and entered written findings of fact and conclusions. See Valdez-Jimenez u. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 136 Nev. 155, 166, 460 P.3d 976, 987 (2020) (setting forth procedural due process requirements). In denying the motion, the district court considered the relevant statutory factors and nonrnonetary alternatives to bail. See id. at 164-65, 460 P.3d at 986. Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

(A)CfrA) J. Cadish

AcilepA (it! Pickering

J. Herndon

cc: Hon. James E. Wilson, District Judge State Public Defender/Carson City Attorney General/Carson City Storey County District Attorney Storey County Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 )) 1947A clir4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Alvarez (Edin) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alvarez-edin-vs-dist-ct-state-nev-2021.

Opinion

J. Herndon

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack