Robinson (Brandon) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)

Nevada Supreme Court

Robinson (Brandon) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)

DecidedAugust 26, 2020

Docket81620

StatusPublished

This text of Robinson (Brandon) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State) (Robinson (Brandon) 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.

Bluebook

Robinson (Brandon) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State), (Neb. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

BRANDON ROBINSON, No. 81620 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, FILED IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK, AUG 2 6 2020 Respondent, ELIZABETH BROWN CLERK OF SU and BY DEPUTY CLERK THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus seeks modification of petitioner's sentence. Problematically, petitioner has not provided this court with all of the exhibits or documentation that would support his claims for relief. See NRAP 21(04) (providing the petitioner shall submit an appendix containing all documents "essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition"). Therefore, without deciding the merits of the claims raised, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction in this matter. See NRAP 21(b).

Sump* Com OF NEVADA

(01 1947A ate)r. ?Jo -3146S We reiterate that "[p]etitioned I cardies] the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted." Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Accordingly, we deny the petition. It is so ORDERED.'

C.J.

, J. A44.C.4.4 , J. Hardesty Stiglich

cc: Brandon Robinson Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

'Petitioner's failure to provide timely proof of service of the petition constitutes an additional basis upon which to deny relief. NRAP 21(a)(1).

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

BRANDON ROBINSON, No. 81620 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, FILED IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK, AUG 2 6 2020 Respondent, ELIZABETH BROWN CLERK OF SU and BY DEPUTY CLERK THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus seeks modification of petitioner's sentence. Problematically, petitioner has not provided this court with all of the exhibits or documentation that would support his claims for relief. See NRAP 21(04) (providing the petitioner shall submit an appendix containing all documents "essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition"). Therefore, without deciding the merits of the claims raised, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction in this matter. See NRAP 21(b).

Sump* Com OF NEVADA

(01 1947A ate)r. ?Jo -3146S We reiterate that "[p]etitioned I cardies] the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted." Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Accordingly, we deny the petition. It is so ORDERED.'

C.J.

, J. A44.C.4.4 , J. Hardesty Stiglich

cc: Brandon Robinson Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

'Petitioner's failure to provide timely proof of service of the petition constitutes an additional basis upon which to deny relief. NRAP 21(a)(1).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Robinson (Brandon) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-brandon-vs-dist-ct-state-nev-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack