Burns (Trevor) v. Dist. Ct. (State)

Nevada Supreme Court

Burns (Trevor) v. Dist. Ct. (State)

DecidedJuly 22, 2014

Docket65798

StatusUnpublished

This text of Burns (Trevor) v. Dist. Ct. (State) (Burns (Trevor) v. 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

Burns (Trevor) v. Dist. Ct. (State), (Neb. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

see also State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Armstrong), 127 Nev. , 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) (defining manifest abuse and arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion in context of mandamus). It will not issue if the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. NRS 34.170. "Petitioner[ I carr[ies] the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted." Pan v. Eighth Judicial Din. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840,844 (2004). Having considered the petition and its accompanying documents, we are not satisfied that our intervention by way of extraordinary writ is warranted. Even assuming that petitioner did not consent to electronic service pursuant to NRCP 5(b)(2)(D), he has not shown that he was prejudiced by the manner in which the grand jury notice was conveyed and therefore he has not demonstrated that the district court manifestly abused its discretion by denying his habeas petition. See Lisle v. State, 113 Nev. 540, 551-52, 937 P.2d 473, 480 (1997), clarified on reh'g, 114 Nev. 221, 224-25, 954 P.2d 744, 746-47 (1998); see also Daniels v. State, 114 Nev. 261, 269-70, 956 P.2d 111, 116- 17 (1998) (discussing the adequacy of a grand jury notice). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

, J.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 0) 1947A ce. cc: Hon. Jessie Elizabeth Walsh, District Judge Karen A. Connolly, Ltd. Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) I94Th

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

see also State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Armstrong), 127 Nev. , 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) (defining manifest abuse and arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion in context of mandamus). It will not issue if the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. NRS 34.170. "Petitioner[ I carr[ies] the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted." Pan v. Eighth Judicial Din. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840,844 (2004). Having considered the petition and its accompanying documents, we are not satisfied that our intervention by way of extraordinary writ is warranted. Even assuming that petitioner did not consent to electronic service pursuant to NRCP 5(b)(2)(D), he has not shown that he was prejudiced by the manner in which the grand jury notice was conveyed and therefore he has not demonstrated that the district court manifestly abused its discretion by denying his habeas petition. See Lisle v. State, 113 Nev. 540, 551-52, 937 P.2d 473, 480 (1997), clarified on reh'g, 114 Nev. 221, 224-25, 954 P.2d 744, 746-47 (1998); see also Daniels v. State, 114 Nev. 261, 269-70, 956 P.2d 111, 116- 17 (1998) (discussing the adequacy of a grand jury notice). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

, J.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 0) 1947A ce. cc: Hon. Jessie Elizabeth Walsh, District Judge Karen A. Connolly, Ltd. Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) I94Th

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Burns (Trevor) v. Dist. Ct. (State), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burns-trevor-v-dist-ct-state-nev-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack