Andersen (Christopher) v. Dist. Ct. (City of Las Vegas)

Nevada Supreme Court

Andersen (Christopher) v. Dist. Ct. (City of Las Vegas)

DecidedFebruary 15, 2018

Docket74712

StatusUnpublished

This text of Andersen (Christopher) v. Dist. Ct. (City of Las Vegas) (Andersen (Christopher) v. Dist. Ct. (City of Las Vegas)) 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

Andersen (Christopher) v. Dist. Ct. (City of Las Vegas), (Neb. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

CHRISTOPHER ANDERSEN, No. 74712 Petitioner, vs. FILED THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, FEB 15 2018 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE ROB BARE, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and CITY OF LAS VEGAS, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus or a writ of mandamus. Petitioner Christopher Andersen argues that the district court erroneously denied his appeal challenging the municipal court's denial of a demand for a jury trial for a misdemeanor domestic battery offense. Recognizing that the right to a jury trial exists only for serious offenses, see Blanton v. North Las Vegas Mun. Ct., 103 Nev. 623, 748 P.2d 494 (1987), aff'd sub nom. Blanton v. North Las Vegas, 489 U.S. 538 (1989), Andersen argues, among other things, that misdemeanor domestic battery is a serious offense because it results in the lifetime prohibition of gun possession pursuant to federal and state law. Andersen has submitted an insufficient appendix for this court's review of the district court's decision. Notably, the appendix is missing the judgment and documents related to the appeal (briefs, the district court's order, and transcripts). See NRAP 21(a)(4) ("The appendix shall include a copy of any order or opinion, parts of the record before the respondent judge . . . or any other original document that may be essential SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 194/A 18 - (1.671/4,0P) to understand the matters set forth in the petition."). Without the necessary documents for this court's review, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (recognizing that a petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (recognizing that whether to consider a writ petition is within this court's discretion). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Rae. ' J.

Gibbons Hardesty

cc: Hon. Rob Bare, District Judge The Pariente Law Firm, P.C. Attorney General/Carson City Las Vegas City Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 91)) 1947A

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

CHRISTOPHER ANDERSEN, No. 74712 Petitioner, vs. FILED THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, FEB 15 2018 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE ROB BARE, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and CITY OF LAS VEGAS, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus or a writ of mandamus. Petitioner Christopher Andersen argues that the district court erroneously denied his appeal challenging the municipal court's denial of a demand for a jury trial for a misdemeanor domestic battery offense. Recognizing that the right to a jury trial exists only for serious offenses, see Blanton v. North Las Vegas Mun. Ct., 103 Nev. 623, 748 P.2d 494 (1987), aff'd sub nom. Blanton v. North Las Vegas, 489 U.S. 538 (1989), Andersen argues, among other things, that misdemeanor domestic battery is a serious offense because it results in the lifetime prohibition of gun possession pursuant to federal and state law. Andersen has submitted an insufficient appendix for this court's review of the district court's decision. Notably, the appendix is missing the judgment and documents related to the appeal (briefs, the district court's order, and transcripts). See NRAP 21(a)(4) ("The appendix shall include a copy of any order or opinion, parts of the record before the respondent judge . . . or any other original document that may be essential SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 194/A 18 - (1.671/4,0P) to understand the matters set forth in the petition."). Without the necessary documents for this court's review, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (recognizing that a petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (recognizing that whether to consider a writ petition is within this court's discretion). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Rae. ' J.

Gibbons Hardesty

cc: Hon. Rob Bare, District Judge The Pariente Law Firm, P.C. Attorney General/Carson City Las Vegas City Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 91)) 1947A

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Andersen (Christopher) v. Dist. Ct. (City of Las Vegas), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andersen-christopher-v-dist-ct-city-of-las-vegas-nev-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack