Frostick (David) v. Dist. Ct. (State)

Nevada Supreme Court

Frostick (David) v. Dist. Ct. (State)

DecidedMay 9, 2017

Docket71032

StatusUnpublished

This text of Frostick (David) v. Dist. Ct. (State) (Frostick (David) 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

Frostick (David) v. Dist. Ct. (State), (Neb. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

DAVID M. FROSTICK, No. 71032 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE ELISSA F. CADISH, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION This is a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the district court's denial of petitioner David Frostick's motion to dismiss counsel and seeking the appointment of alternative counsel. Frostick contends that the district court abused its discretion by inadequately inquiring into the grounds for the motion, as required by Young v. State, 120 Nev. 963, 102 P.3d 572 (2004), and asks this court to dismiss the charges against him or to remand the matter to the district court for a rehearing. Having considered the documents submitted in this matter, we conclude that Frostick has not met his burden of demonstrating that our intervention by extraordinary writ relief is warranted because he has an adequate legal remedy in the form of an appeal from his conviction. NRS 34.170; NRS 177.045; Pan u. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004) (holding that an appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy precluding writ relief); see also Garcia v. State, 121 Nev. 327, 336-39, 113 P.3d 836, 842-44 (2005) (considering on appeal from SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A a judgment of conviction a claim that the district court abused its discretion in denying the defendant's motion for substitution of counsel); Gallego v. State, 117 Nev. 348, 362-65, 23 P.3d 227, 237-38 (2001) (same), abrogated on other grounds by Nunnery v. State, 127 Nev. 749, 263 P.3d 235 (2011). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

J. Douglas

Pickering

cc: Hon. Elissa F. Cadish, District Judge David Michael Frostick Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A eo

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

DAVID M. FROSTICK, No. 71032 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE ELISSA F. CADISH, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION This is a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the district court's denial of petitioner David Frostick's motion to dismiss counsel and seeking the appointment of alternative counsel. Frostick contends that the district court abused its discretion by inadequately inquiring into the grounds for the motion, as required by Young v. State, 120 Nev. 963, 102 P.3d 572 (2004), and asks this court to dismiss the charges against him or to remand the matter to the district court for a rehearing. Having considered the documents submitted in this matter, we conclude that Frostick has not met his burden of demonstrating that our intervention by extraordinary writ relief is warranted because he has an adequate legal remedy in the form of an appeal from his conviction. NRS 34.170; NRS 177.045; Pan u. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004) (holding that an appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy precluding writ relief); see also Garcia v. State, 121 Nev. 327, 336-39, 113 P.3d 836, 842-44 (2005) (considering on appeal from SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A a judgment of conviction a claim that the district court abused its discretion in denying the defendant's motion for substitution of counsel); Gallego v. State, 117 Nev. 348, 362-65, 23 P.3d 227, 237-38 (2001) (same), abrogated on other grounds by Nunnery v. State, 127 Nev. 749, 263 P.3d 235 (2011). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

J. Douglas

Pickering

cc: Hon. Elissa F. Cadish, District Judge David Michael Frostick Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A eo

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Frostick (David) v. Dist. Ct. (State), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frostick-david-v-dist-ct-state-nev-2017.

Opinion

J. Douglas

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack