Goodlett (Christopher) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)

Nevada Supreme Court

Goodlett (Christopher) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)

DecidedOctober 24, 2019

Docket79561

StatusPublished

This text of Goodlett (Christopher) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State) (Goodlett (Christopher) 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

Goodlett (Christopher) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State), (Neb. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

CHRISTOPHER L. GOODLETT, No. 79561 Petitioner, VS. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FILE CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE WILLIAM D. KEPHART, DISTRICT OCT 2 it 2019 (---) CROWN JUDGE, CLE SFSREME CO 211 .R5„ ... Respondents, DEPUTY CLERK and THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION This original petition for a writ of mandamus or, alternatively, prohibition challenges a district court order denying a pretrial petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We are not satisfied that this court's intervention by way of an extraordinary writ is warranted because petitioner has not demonstrated that the district court acted arbitrarily or capriciously in denying the petition. See NRS 34.160; Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 603-04, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981) (recognizing that a writ of mandamus is available to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion); see also State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Armstrong), 127 Nev. 927, 931-32, 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) (defining an

'We note that prohibition is not available to challenge the district court's denial of a pretrial petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Goicoechea v. Fourth Judicial Dist. Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289, 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980) ("A writ of prohibition . . . will not issue if the court sought to be restrained had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter under consideration.").

/c1-1/399.3 arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (recognizing that a petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted); Poulos v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 98 Nev. 453, 455, 652 P.2d 1177, 1178 (1982) (recognizing that a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and that the decision to entertain such a writ rests within this court's discretion). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.2

Douglas

cc: Hon. William D. Kephart, District Judge Clark County Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

2The Honorable Michael Douglas, Senior Justice, participated in the decision of this matter under a general order of assignment.

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

CHRISTOPHER L. GOODLETT, No. 79561 Petitioner, VS. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FILE CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE WILLIAM D. KEPHART, DISTRICT OCT 2 it 2019 (---) CROWN JUDGE, CLE SFSREME CO 211 .R5„ ... Respondents, DEPUTY CLERK and THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION This original petition for a writ of mandamus or, alternatively, prohibition challenges a district court order denying a pretrial petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We are not satisfied that this court's intervention by way of an extraordinary writ is warranted because petitioner has not demonstrated that the district court acted arbitrarily or capriciously in denying the petition. See NRS 34.160; Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 603-04, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981) (recognizing that a writ of mandamus is available to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion); see also State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Armstrong), 127 Nev. 927, 931-32, 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) (defining an

'We note that prohibition is not available to challenge the district court's denial of a pretrial petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Goicoechea v. Fourth Judicial Dist. Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289, 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980) ("A writ of prohibition . . . will not issue if the court sought to be restrained had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter under consideration.").

/c1-1/399.3 arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (recognizing that a petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted); Poulos v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 98 Nev. 453, 455, 652 P.2d 1177, 1178 (1982) (recognizing that a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and that the decision to entertain such a writ rests within this court's discretion). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.2

Douglas

cc: Hon. William D. Kephart, District Judge Clark County Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

2The Honorable Michael Douglas, Senior Justice, participated in the decision of this matter under a general order of assignment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Goodlett (Christopher) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodlett-christopher-vs-dist-ct-state-nev-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack