Herrera (Rodolfo) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: March 18, 2021
• Docket: 82365
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

RODOLFO HERRERA, No. 82365 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, FILED I N AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MAR 1 ß 2021 CLARK; THE HONORABLE BIZABETN e.P.C.0.4:14 JACQUELINE M. BLUTH, DISTRICT CLER.OF$UÇiE COURT JUDGE; AND SHERIFF JOSEPH SY DEPUTY CLP-RK LOMBARDO, Respondents, and THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges the district court's denial of petitioner's amended petition for a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus or, alternatively, petition for a writ of coram nobis. Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that writ relief is warranted because an appeal from the district court's denial of such relief in the first instance is a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. See NRAP 22 (-An application for an original writ of habeas corpus should be made to the appropriate district court. If an application is made to the district court and denied, the proper remedy is by appeal from the district court's order denying the writ"); Trujillo v. State, 129 Nev. 706, 718, 310 P.3d 594, 602 (2013) (an order resolving a petition for a writ of coram nobis is appealable); see also Pan v. Eighth judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004) (writ relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 4441pc4 adequate remedy at law and the petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that writ relief is warranted). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

, C.J. Hardesty

LIZILtgAD • '11446%16.rnalat j. arraguirre Silver

cc: Hon. Jacqueline M. Bluth, District Judge Law Offices of John G. Watkins The Pariente Law Firm, P.C. Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT Of NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A