Roberts (Paul) v. Dist. Ct. (State)

Nevada Supreme Court

Roberts (Paul) v. Dist. Ct. (State)

DecidedJanuary 14, 2016

Docket69348

StatusUnpublished

This text of Roberts (Paul) v. Dist. Ct. (State) (Roberts (Paul) 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

Roberts (Paul) v. Dist. Ct. (State), (Neb. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

PAUL ROBERTS, No. 69348 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FILED CLARK; AND CHARLES THOMPSON, JAN 1 4 2016 SENIOR JUDGE, Respondents, and THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION In this original petition for a writ of mandamus, petitioner Paul Roberts challenges an order of the district court allowing the State to amend the information pursuant to NRS 173.035(2). Roberts argues that the district court acted arbitrarily and capriciously by granting leave to amend the information without a proper affidavit after a motion to add the charges was denied by the justice court at the preliminary hearing. We conclude that Roberts has not demonstrated that the district court manifestly abused or arbitrarily or capriciously exercised its discretion and decline to exercise our discretion to consider his petition. See Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (holding that it is within this court's discretion whether to consider a writ petition); see also State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Armstrong), 127 Nev. 927, 931-32, 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) (defining manifest abuse and arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004)

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A e aU (concluding that petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.'

Saitta

a. Pickering

cc: Eighth Judicial District Court Dept. 20 Hon. Charles Thompson, Senior Judge Mueller Hinds & Associates Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

"We direct the clerk of this court to correct the caption on the docket sheet to conform to the caption on this order.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A e

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

PAUL ROBERTS, No. 69348 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FILED CLARK; AND CHARLES THOMPSON, JAN 1 4 2016 SENIOR JUDGE, Respondents, and THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION In this original petition for a writ of mandamus, petitioner Paul Roberts challenges an order of the district court allowing the State to amend the information pursuant to NRS 173.035(2). Roberts argues that the district court acted arbitrarily and capriciously by granting leave to amend the information without a proper affidavit after a motion to add the charges was denied by the justice court at the preliminary hearing. We conclude that Roberts has not demonstrated that the district court manifestly abused or arbitrarily or capriciously exercised its discretion and decline to exercise our discretion to consider his petition. See Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (holding that it is within this court's discretion whether to consider a writ petition); see also State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Armstrong), 127 Nev. 927, 931-32, 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) (defining manifest abuse and arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004)

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A e aU (concluding that petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.'

Saitta

a. Pickering

cc: Eighth Judicial District Court Dept. 20 Hon. Charles Thompson, Senior Judge Mueller Hinds & Associates Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

"We direct the clerk of this court to correct the caption on the docket sheet to conform to the caption on this order.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A e

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Roberts (Paul) v. Dist. Ct. (State), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberts-paul-v-dist-ct-state-nev-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack