Mkhitaryan (Sergey) Vs. Dist. (State)

Nevada Supreme Court

Mkhitaryan (Sergey) Vs. Dist. (State)

DecidedApril 15, 2020

Docket80727

StatusPublished

This text of Mkhitaryan (Sergey) Vs. Dist. (State) (Mkhitaryan (Sergey) Vs. Dist. (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

Mkhitaryan (Sergey) Vs. Dist. (State), (Neb. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

SERGEY MKHITARYAN, No. 80727 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT FILL COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF APR 1 5 2020 CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE ELIZABETH A. Cil-sfAIN - UPREME COURT VALERIE ADAIR, DISTRICT JUDGE, OM*DEPUTY 'CLERK IMJ BY A •a Respondents, and THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION This original petition for a writ of mandamus, or alternatively, a writ of prohibition challenges the denial of a renewed motion to dismiss an indictment. We have considered the petition on file herein, and we are not satisfied that this court's intervention by way of an extraordinary writ is warranted at this time. See Poulos v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 98 Nev. 453, 455, 652 P.2d 1177, 1178 (1982) (recognizing that it is within the discretion of this court to determine if a petition will be considered). A writ of prohibition is not available because the district court had jurisdiction to hear and consider the motion. See NRS 34.320; Goicoechea v. Fourth

Judicial Dist. Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289, 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980) (holding that a writ of prohibition "will not issue if the court sought to be restrained had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter under consideration"). And petitioner has not demonstrated that the district court acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying the renewed motion to dismiss the indictment. NRS 34.160; State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Armstrong), 127 Nev. 927, 931-32, 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) (providing that a district court arbitrarily

/.0-114-'501b and capriciously exercises its discretion when it fails to follow clearly established law); 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 compel the performance of an act which the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station, or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion). Accordingly, we ORDER the petiton DENIED.

J. Parraguirre

Cd-A J. Hardesty

Cadish cdrA, J.

cc: Hon. Valerie Adair, District Judge Clark Hill PLLC Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREPAE Couat OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1.447A AgAID

•

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

SERGEY MKHITARYAN, No. 80727 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT FILL COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF APR 1 5 2020 CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE ELIZABETH A. Cil-sfAIN - UPREME COURT VALERIE ADAIR, DISTRICT JUDGE, OM*DEPUTY 'CLERK IMJ BY A •a Respondents, and THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION This original petition for a writ of mandamus, or alternatively, a writ of prohibition challenges the denial of a renewed motion to dismiss an indictment. We have considered the petition on file herein, and we are not satisfied that this court's intervention by way of an extraordinary writ is warranted at this time. See Poulos v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 98 Nev. 453, 455, 652 P.2d 1177, 1178 (1982) (recognizing that it is within the discretion of this court to determine if a petition will be considered). A writ of prohibition is not available because the district court had jurisdiction to hear and consider the motion. See NRS 34.320; Goicoechea v. Fourth

Judicial Dist. Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289, 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980) (holding that a writ of prohibition "will not issue if the court sought to be restrained had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter under consideration"). And petitioner has not demonstrated that the district court acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying the renewed motion to dismiss the indictment. NRS 34.160; State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Armstrong), 127 Nev. 927, 931-32, 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) (providing that a district court arbitrarily

/.0-114-'501b and capriciously exercises its discretion when it fails to follow clearly established law); 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 compel the performance of an act which the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station, or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion). Accordingly, we ORDER the petiton DENIED.

J. Parraguirre

Cd-A J. Hardesty

Cadish cdrA, J.

cc: Hon. Valerie Adair, District Judge Clark Hill PLLC Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREPAE Couat OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1.447A AgAID

•

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Mkhitaryan (Sergey) Vs. Dist. (State), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mkhitaryan-sergey-vs-dist-state-nev-2020.

Opinion

J. Parraguirre

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack