Brock (Johnny) Vs. State

Nevada Supreme Court

Brock (Johnny) Vs. State

474 P.3d 834

CourtNevada Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 23, 2020

Docket81909

StatusPublished

This text of 474 P.3d 834 (Brock (Johnny) Vs. 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

Brock (Johnny) Vs. State, 474 P.3d 834 (Neb. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

JOHNNY BROCK, No, 81909 Petitioner, vs. THE STATE OF NEVADA, FILED Respondent. OCT 2 3 2020

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original pro se petition seeks a writ of mandamus to compel a determination that he is eligible for parole. Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. See NRS 34.170; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004) (noting that a writ of mandamus is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law and explaining that petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that writ relief is warranted). Petitioner has not provided this court with a copy of a district court order denying him writ relief in the first instance. 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"). Even assuming that the relief sought here could be properly obtained through a petition for writ relief, any application for such relief should be made to the district court in the first instance so that factual and legal issues are fully developed, giving this court an adequate record to review. See 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 face and determining that when there are factual issues presented, this court will

_ .(.1001.1 20 , • , not exercise its discretion to entertain a petition for extraordinary relief even though "irnportant public interests are involved"); 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). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Pickering

/ A,, , J.

Hardesty Silver

cc: Johnny Brock Attorney General/Carson City

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) I947A 0411D0 2 f. "fAV •.:iiiNgf.i::akte,A1-44173 •re-

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

JOHNNY BROCK, No, 81909 Petitioner, vs. THE STATE OF NEVADA, FILED Respondent. OCT 2 3 2020

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original pro se petition seeks a writ of mandamus to compel a determination that he is eligible for parole. Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. See NRS 34.170; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004) (noting that a writ of mandamus is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law and explaining that petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that writ relief is warranted). Petitioner has not provided this court with a copy of a district court order denying him writ relief in the first instance. 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"). Even assuming that the relief sought here could be properly obtained through a petition for writ relief, any application for such relief should be made to the district court in the first instance so that factual and legal issues are fully developed, giving this court an adequate record to review. See 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 face and determining that when there are factual issues presented, this court will

_ .(.1001.1 20 , • , not exercise its discretion to entertain a petition for extraordinary relief even though "irnportant public interests are involved"); 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). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Pickering

/ A,, , J.

Hardesty Silver

cc: Johnny Brock Attorney General/Carson City

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) I947A 0411D0 2 f. "fAV •.:iiiNgf.i::akte,A1-44173 •re-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

474 P.3d 834, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brock-johnny-vs-state-nev-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack