Perez (Ruben) v. State

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: February 10, 2016
• Docket: 68254
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

RUBEN PAUL PEREZ, A/K/A ENRIQUE No. 68254 ROCHA PEREZ, Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent. FILED FEB 10 2016

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE This is a pro se appeal from a district court order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus. 1 Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Douglas W. Herndon, Judge. In his petition, appellant requested that the district court assign a "special master" to search the court's archives for his sentencing transcripts to determine whether his written judgment of conviction contains a clerical error. Appellant fails to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion by denying his petition. See Kay v. Nunez, 122 Nev. 1100, 1105, 146 P.3d 801, 805 (2006) ("When reviewing a district court order resolving a petition for mandamus relief, this court considers whether the district court has abused its discretion."); see generally

1 Thisappeal has been submitted for decision without oral argument, NRAP 34(0(3), and we conclude that the record is sufficient for our review and additional briefing is unwarranted. See Luckett v. Warden, 91 Nev. 681, 682, 541 P.2d 910, 911 (1975).

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A ,7(11Sc))4 Bradley v. State, 109 Nev. 1090, 1095, 864 P.2d 1272, 1275 (1993) (discussing the effect of an oral sentence pronouncement). Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2

Parraguirre Dougla

CHERRY, J., concurring: I concur.

CL Cherry J.

cc: Hon. Douglas W. Herndon, District Judge Ruben Paul Perez Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

2We have received the document appellant submitted on October 19, 2015, and conclude that no relief is warranted based upon this submission.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A e