Frost (Malik) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)

Nevada Supreme Court

Frost (Malik) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)

DecidedOctober 14, 2021

Docket83535

StatusPublished

This text of Frost (Malik) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State) (Frost (Malik) Vs. 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

Frost (Malik) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State), (Neb. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

MALIK FROST, No. 83535 Petitioner, VS .

THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, FILED IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE OCT 14 2021 CAROLYN ELLSWORTH, Cir.LARETH . A. DROWN CLER1OF • PREME COURT Respondents, SY • DEPUTY CLERK and THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Part in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges the district court's denial of a request to set reasonable bail. This court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, and the issuance of such extraordinary relief is within this court's sole 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). Petitioner bears 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). Problematically, petitioner has not provided this court with a copy of a written district court order that he challenges, which is necessary for this court's consideration of the petition. 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"); see also Rust v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 689, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987) CAn SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 04616914 .21-.2.4159i0 oral pronouncement of judgment is not valid for any purpose . . . ."). Therefore, without deciding the merits of the claims raised, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction in this matter. See NRAP 21(b). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

/...1,., , C.J. Hardesty

-94-''tir-17 Parraguirre Ai4GA-0 Stiglich , J.

cc: Las Vegas Defense Group, LLC Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

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

MALIK FROST, No. 83535 Petitioner, VS .

THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, FILED IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE OCT 14 2021 CAROLYN ELLSWORTH, Cir.LARETH . A. DROWN CLER1OF • PREME COURT Respondents, SY • DEPUTY CLERK and THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Part in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges the district court's denial of a request to set reasonable bail. This court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, and the issuance of such extraordinary relief is within this court's sole 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). Petitioner bears 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). Problematically, petitioner has not provided this court with a copy of a written district court order that he challenges, which is necessary for this court's consideration of the petition. 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"); see also Rust v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 689, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987) CAn SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 04616914 .21-.2.4159i0 oral pronouncement of judgment is not valid for any purpose . . . ."). Therefore, without deciding the merits of the claims raised, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction in this matter. See NRAP 21(b). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

/...1,., , C.J. Hardesty

-94-''tir-17 Parraguirre Ai4GA-0 Stiglich , J.

cc: Las Vegas Defense Group, LLC Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Frost (Malik) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frost-malik-vs-dist-ct-state-nev-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack