Followill (Nicole) v. State, Parole Bd. Of Comm'Rs
This text of Followill (Nicole) v. State, Parole Bd. Of Comm'Rs (Followill (Nicole) v. State, Parole Bd. Of Comm'Rs) 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.
Opinion
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
NICOLE CHRISTINE FOLLOWILL, No. 84690 Petitioner, vs. STATE OF NEVADA PAROLE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS; FILED COMMISSIONER LAMICIA BAILEY; COMMISSIONER ERIC JUN 1 5 2022 CHRISTIANSEN; COMMISSIONER ELIZABETH A. BROWN DONNA VERCHIO; COMMISSIONER CLERK g7REME COURT BY SCOTT WEISENTHAL; AND KATIE DEPUTY CLERK FRANKER, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, Res • ondents.
ORDER DENYING PETITION
This is an original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the denial of parole. Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. See NRS 34.160; NRS 34.170; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (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). A challenge to the denial of parole should be raised in a petition for a writ of mandamus 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 Round Hill Gen. Improvement 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); State v. Cty. of Dougla.s, 90 Nev. 272, 276-77, 524 P.2d 1271, 1274 (1974) (noting
SUPREME COURT Of
NEVADA
(0) 1947A drigOD
QV- 19040 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 Cortez Masto v. Gypsum Res., 129 Nev. 23, 33-34, 294 P.3d 404, 410-11 (2013). Petitioner may appeal to this court from a final decision. Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.
C.J. Parraguirre
J. Hardesty
A4.4:4-0 J. Stiglich
cc: Nicole Christine Followill Attorney General/Carson City Attorney General/Dep't of Public Safety/Carson City Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 tol 1947A egigS4=>
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Followill (Nicole) v. State, Parole Bd. Of Comm'Rs, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/followill-nicole-v-state-parole-bd-of-commrs-nev-2022.