Bonham (Bryan) v. The Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct.

Nevada Supreme Court

Bonham (Bryan) v. The Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct.

DecidedApril 14, 2022

Docket84405

StatusPublished

This text of Bonham (Bryan) v. The Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct. (Bonham (Bryan) v. The Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct.) 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

Bonham (Bryan) v. The Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., (Neb. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

BRYAN PHILLIP BONHAM, No, 84405 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT FILED COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF APR 1 4 202 CLARK, ELIZABETH A. BROWN CLERK OF SUPREME COURT Res • ondent. BY EPLfl7 CLERK

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This pro se original petition seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the district court to supply petitioner free copies of written orders regarding petitioner's motion to correct illegal sentence and petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. See NRS 34.170; Pan u. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (petitioners bear the burden to demonstrate that extraordinary relief is warranted). Petitioner has not demonstrated that he requested and was denied free copies by the district court in the first instance. See NRAP 21(a)(4) (providing that the petitioner shall submit an appendix containing all documents "essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition"). Even assuming the relief sought here could be properly obtained through a petition for writ relief, any application for such relief should first be directed to and resolved by the district court. See State u. 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 court" in the first instance), abrogated

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(4.1) 1)47A cd1201, on other grounds by Attorney Gen. v. Gypsum Res., 129 Nev. 23, 33-34, 294 P.3d 404, 410-11 (2013).1 Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.2

Parraguirre

,_• 2f44 J. Hardesty Stiglich

cc: Bryan Phillip Bonham Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

1To the extent the district court has not yet issued a written order regarding petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, this court is confident the district court will issue a written ruling as expeditiously as its calendar permits.

2Petitioner's March 18, 2022, "Notice of Motion" is denied.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A 416Ylor.

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

BRYAN PHILLIP BONHAM, No, 84405 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT FILED COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF APR 1 4 202 CLARK, ELIZABETH A. BROWN CLERK OF SUPREME COURT Res • ondent. BY EPLfl7 CLERK

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This pro se original petition seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the district court to supply petitioner free copies of written orders regarding petitioner's motion to correct illegal sentence and petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. See NRS 34.170; Pan u. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (petitioners bear the burden to demonstrate that extraordinary relief is warranted). Petitioner has not demonstrated that he requested and was denied free copies by the district court in the first instance. See NRAP 21(a)(4) (providing that the petitioner shall submit an appendix containing all documents "essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition"). Even assuming the relief sought here could be properly obtained through a petition for writ relief, any application for such relief should first be directed to and resolved by the district court. See State u. 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 court" in the first instance), abrogated

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(4.1) 1)47A cd1201, on other grounds by Attorney Gen. v. Gypsum Res., 129 Nev. 23, 33-34, 294 P.3d 404, 410-11 (2013).1 Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.2

Parraguirre

,_• 2f44 J. Hardesty Stiglich

cc: Bryan Phillip Bonham Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

1To the extent the district court has not yet issued a written order regarding petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, this court is confident the district court will issue a written ruling as expeditiously as its calendar permits.

2Petitioner's March 18, 2022, "Notice of Motion" is denied.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A 416Ylor.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Bonham (Bryan) v. The Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bonham-bryan-v-the-eighth-judicial-dist-ct-nev-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack