Clark (William) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: July 30, 2021
• Docket: 83219
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

WILLIAM RONALD CLARK, No. 83219 Petitioner, VS.

THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PILED CLARK, JUL 3 i 2021 Respondent, and THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF

This is an original pro se petition for extraordinary relief that we have construed as a petition for a writ of mandamus. It appears that petitioner seeks a writ directing the district court to dismiss the criminal complaint against him due to several alleged errors committed by the district court, the State, and his counsel. Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted, because an appeal from the judgment of conviction constitutes a plain, speedy, and adequate legal remedy precluding writ relief. See NRS 34.170; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004) (explaining that a writ of mandamus is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law, that an appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy precluding writ relief, and that petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that writ relief is warranted).

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) I947A 4WD Moreover, to the extent petitioner asserts ineffective assistance of counsel claims, we note that such claims are appropriately raised in a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in 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 NRAP 22 (An application for an original writ of habeas corpus should be made to the appropriate district court. If an application is made to the district court and denied, the proper remedy is by appeal from the district court's order denying the writ."); 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 fact"); State v. County 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 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.'

/ , C.J. Hardesty

4124)4‘"11 Pa aguirre 61.4°"9 Cadish

'Petitioner also filed a motion to exceed the page and/or word limit. The motion is granted in this instance; the petition was filed on July 15, 2021. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A 44101D cc: William Ronald Clark Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (CA 1447A ,z4W7tP,