Anthony-Smith (Victor) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)

Nevada Supreme Court

Anthony-Smith (Victor) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)

DecidedNovember 13, 2020

Docket81122

StatusPublished

This text of Anthony-Smith (Victor) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State) (Anthony-Smith (Victor) 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

Anthony-Smith (Victor) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State), (Neb. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

VICTOR ROBERT ANTHONY-SMITH, No. 81122 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE CRISTINA D. FILED SILVA, DISTRICT JUDGE, NOV 13 2020 Respondents, and PREM THE STATE OF NEVADA, IEF DEPUTY CLERK

Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION This petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order denying a pretrial petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner argues that NRS 171.196(6) violates his due process rights and should not have applied to a conspiracy count. We conclude that our intervention by extraordinary relief is not warranted because petitioner did not present cogent substantive and procedural due process arguments and because NRS 171.196(6) applies to conspiracy to commit sexual assault. NRS 34.160; State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Armstrong), 127 Nev. 927, 931-32, 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) (providing that a district court arbitrarily and capriciously exercises its discretion when it fails to follow clearly established law); Poulos v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 98 Nev. 453, 455, 652 P.2d 1177, 1178 (1982) (recognizing that it is within the discretion of this court to determine if a petition for extraordinary relief will be considered); 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 act which the law requires as a SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) I 947A ofello so. duty resulting from an office, trust or station, or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion); see also Maresca v. State, 103 Nev. 669, 673, 748 P.2d 3, 6 (1987). Further, a writ of prohibition is not available because the district court had jurisdiction over the criminal case and the defendant. See NRS 34.320; Goicoechea v. Fourth Judicial Dist. Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289, 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980) (holding that a writ of prohibition "will not issue if the court sought to be restrained had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter under consideration"). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Parraguirre

, J. Hardesty

, J. Cadish

cc: Hon. Cristina D. Silva, District Judge James J. Ruggeroli Special Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

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

VICTOR ROBERT ANTHONY-SMITH, No. 81122 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE CRISTINA D. FILED SILVA, DISTRICT JUDGE, NOV 13 2020 Respondents, and PREM THE STATE OF NEVADA, IEF DEPUTY CLERK

Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION This petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order denying a pretrial petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner argues that NRS 171.196(6) violates his due process rights and should not have applied to a conspiracy count. We conclude that our intervention by extraordinary relief is not warranted because petitioner did not present cogent substantive and procedural due process arguments and because NRS 171.196(6) applies to conspiracy to commit sexual assault. NRS 34.160; State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Armstrong), 127 Nev. 927, 931-32, 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) (providing that a district court arbitrarily and capriciously exercises its discretion when it fails to follow clearly established law); Poulos v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 98 Nev. 453, 455, 652 P.2d 1177, 1178 (1982) (recognizing that it is within the discretion of this court to determine if a petition for extraordinary relief will be considered); 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 act which the law requires as a SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) I 947A ofello so. duty resulting from an office, trust or station, or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion); see also Maresca v. State, 103 Nev. 669, 673, 748 P.2d 3, 6 (1987). Further, a writ of prohibition is not available because the district court had jurisdiction over the criminal case and the defendant. See NRS 34.320; Goicoechea v. Fourth Judicial Dist. Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289, 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980) (holding that a writ of prohibition "will not issue if the court sought to be restrained had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter under consideration"). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Parraguirre

, J. Hardesty

, J. Cadish

cc: Hon. Cristina D. Silva, District Judge James J. Ruggeroli Special Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Anthony-Smith (Victor) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anthony-smith-victor-vs-dist-ct-state-nev-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack