Ragland (Brandon) v. State
This text of Ragland (Brandon) v. State (Ragland (Brandon) v. 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
BRANDON CHRISTOPHER RAGLAND, No. 69589 Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent. FILED MAR 0 4 2016 TRACE K LINDEMAN CLERK_W SUPREME COURT \hwt trif1/4-151 ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL DEPUTY CLERK
This is a pro se appeal from a district court order denying a motion to expose malfeasance. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; William D. Kephart, Judge. Because no statute or court rule permits an appeal from the aforementioned decision, we lack jurisdiction. Castillo v. State, 106 Nev. 349, 352, 792 P.2d 1133, 1135 (1990). Accordingly, we ORDER this appeal DISMISSED. 1
it Hardesty tfretAi\
Saitta Pickering
'In light of this order, we deny as moot the pro se motion for leave to file an opening brief filed on February 9, 2016.
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A en4
1(9-0-7040 cc: Hon. William D. Kephart, District Judge Brandon Christopher Ragland Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk
(0) I94Th 2
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Ragland (Brandon) v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ragland-brandon-v-state-nev-2016.