Craige (Kristian) v. Dist. Ct. (State)

Nevada Supreme Court

Craige (Kristian) v. Dist. Ct. (State)

DecidedMarch 4, 2022

Docket84164

StatusPublished

This text of Craige (Kristian) v. Dist. Ct. (State) (Craige (Kristian) 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

Craige (Kristian) v. Dist. Ct. (State), (Neb. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

KRISTIAN REGINALD CRAIGE, No. 84164 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, FILED IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE ERIC MAR 4 2tr22 JOHNSON, DISTRICT JUDGE, EUZABETH A. BROWN CLETF4UPREME COURT Respondents, BY DE . PUT t=rea- and THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This pro se original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges various pretrial rulings by the district court in a criminal proceeding. This court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, and the issuance of such extraordinary relief is solely within this court's discretion. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 4; D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). Petitioners bear the burden to show that extraordinary relief is warranted, and such relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004). An appeal is generally an adequate remedy precluding writ relief. Id. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. Even when an appeal is not immediately available because the challenged order is interlocutory in nature, the fact that the order may ultimately be challenged on appeal from a final judgment generally precludes writ relief. Id. at 225, 88 P.3d at 841.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) I 947 A 4$41bia Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted because petitioner has not demonstrated that a direct appeal from a judgment of conviction would not be a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. In addition, petitioner failed to provide copies of the district court orders he is challenging and the other materials that may be essential to understanding the matters set forth in the petition. See NRAP 21(a)(4); see also Rust v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 689, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987) (explaining that a written order is essential to this court's review). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

PaNaguirre

deitiC44-P Hardesty Stiglich

cc: Hon. Eric Johnson, District Judge Kristian Reginald Craige Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

( 0) I947A 44D0 2

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

KRISTIAN REGINALD CRAIGE, No. 84164 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, FILED IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE ERIC MAR 4 2tr22 JOHNSON, DISTRICT JUDGE, EUZABETH A. BROWN CLETF4UPREME COURT Respondents, BY DE . PUT t=rea- and THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This pro se original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges various pretrial rulings by the district court in a criminal proceeding. This court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, and the issuance of such extraordinary relief is solely within this court's discretion. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 4; D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). Petitioners bear the burden to show that extraordinary relief is warranted, and such relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004). An appeal is generally an adequate remedy precluding writ relief. Id. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. Even when an appeal is not immediately available because the challenged order is interlocutory in nature, the fact that the order may ultimately be challenged on appeal from a final judgment generally precludes writ relief. Id. at 225, 88 P.3d at 841.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) I 947 A 4$41bia Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted because petitioner has not demonstrated that a direct appeal from a judgment of conviction would not be a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. In addition, petitioner failed to provide copies of the district court orders he is challenging and the other materials that may be essential to understanding the matters set forth in the petition. See NRAP 21(a)(4); see also Rust v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 689, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987) (explaining that a written order is essential to this court's review). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

PaNaguirre

deitiC44-P Hardesty Stiglich

cc: Hon. Eric Johnson, District Judge Kristian Reginald Craige Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

( 0) I947A 44D0 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Craige (Kristian) v. Dist. Ct. (State), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/craige-kristian-v-dist-ct-state-nev-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack