Machado (William) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)
This text of Machado (William) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State) (Machado (William) 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.
Opinion
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
WILLIAM MACHADO, No. 81417 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FILED CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE JERRY A. WIESE, DISTRICT JUDGE, JUL 2 8 2020 ELIZABETH A. BROWN Respondents, CLERK OF SUPREME COURT and BY DEpurci,-gitil1W"- THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION
This petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order denying a motion to suppress. We have reviewed the documents submitted in this matter and, without deciding upon the merits of any claims raised herein, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction in this matter. See NRS 34.160; NRS 34.330; NRAP 21(b)(1); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (Petitioned j cardies] the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted."). Neither a writ of mandamus nor a writ of prohibition will issue when petitioner has a "plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." Gurnrn v. State, Depit of Educ., 121 Nev. 371, 375, 113 P.3d 853, 856 (2005); NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330. Petitioner has not established that an eventual appeal does not afford an adequate legal remedy. Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841 C [11 he right to appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy that precludes
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
(0) I937A agliDIPD .20-0/74/79 rkii" . •- • rs , • :••••••••;1-,142-.-a...:. '-‘k-algii:aisilq44:::4::; • writ relief."). We therefore conclude that interlocutory review by extraordinary writ is not warranted in this case. Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.1
Pickering
, J. Hardesty Stiglich
cc: Hon. Jerry A. Wiese, District Judge Clark County Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk
1In light of this order, we deny as moot petitioner's motion requesting leave to file CD exhibits.
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 oi l947A 1161/12,
l:4
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Machado (William) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/machado-william-vs-dist-ct-state-nev-2020.