Ice (Gerald) v. Dist. Ct. (State)

Nevada Supreme Court

Ice (Gerald) v. Dist. Ct. (State)

DecidedSeptember 11, 2015

Docket68370

StatusUnpublished

This text of Ice (Gerald) v. Dist. Ct. (State) (Ice (Gerald) 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

Ice (Gerald) v. Dist. Ct. (State), (Neb. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

right to due process because the statutes are too ambiguous. We decline to exercise our discretion to consider the petition for two reasons. See State ex rel. Dep't Transp. v. Thompson, 99 Nev. 358, 662 P.2d 1338 (1983) (explaining that extraordinary writ petitions are addressed to this court's sound discretion), modified on other grounds by State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 118 Nev. 140, 147, 42 P.3d 233, 237 (2002). First, this court generally does not exercise its discretion to entertain a claim concerning a pretrial challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support probable cause, see Kussman v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 96 Nev. 544, 546, 612 P.2d 679, 680 (1980), and Ice has not demonstrated that his challenge fits within the exception we have made for purely legal issues, see Ostman v. Eighth Judicial Din. Court, 107 Nev. 563, 565, 816 P.2d 458, 459-60 (1991); State v. Babayan, 106 Nev. 155, 174, 787 P.2d 805, 819-20 (1990). Second, should Ice be convicted, he has an adequate remedy at law by way of an appeal to challenge to the constitutionality of the robbery statutes as they apply to the facts of his case. See NRS 34.170. Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Parraguirre

ca, J. Douglas

Cherry a kit 14 J.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

2 (0) 1947A e cc: Hon. Valerie Adair, District Judge The Law Offices of Ivette Amelburu Maningo Palm Law Firm, Ltd. Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

right to due process because the statutes are too ambiguous. We decline to exercise our discretion to consider the petition for two reasons. See State ex rel. Dep't Transp. v. Thompson, 99 Nev. 358, 662 P.2d 1338 (1983) (explaining that extraordinary writ petitions are addressed to this court's sound discretion), modified on other grounds by State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 118 Nev. 140, 147, 42 P.3d 233, 237 (2002). First, this court generally does not exercise its discretion to entertain a claim concerning a pretrial challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support probable cause, see Kussman v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 96 Nev. 544, 546, 612 P.2d 679, 680 (1980), and Ice has not demonstrated that his challenge fits within the exception we have made for purely legal issues, see Ostman v. Eighth Judicial Din. Court, 107 Nev. 563, 565, 816 P.2d 458, 459-60 (1991); State v. Babayan, 106 Nev. 155, 174, 787 P.2d 805, 819-20 (1990). Second, should Ice be convicted, he has an adequate remedy at law by way of an appeal to challenge to the constitutionality of the robbery statutes as they apply to the facts of his case. See NRS 34.170. Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.