Villadelgado (Goderick) v. The Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct.

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: October 6, 2022
• Docket: 85273
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

GODERICK VILLADELGADO, No. 85273 Petitioner, vs.

THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT FILE COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF OCT 06 2022 CLARK, ELIZABETH A. BROWN CLERK 111F REME COURT Respondent. BY • DEPUTrcLERK

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This is an original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the parole board's decision to deny parole. Mandamus relief is an extraordinary remedy, and petitioners bear the burden to show that such relief is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). In the instant matter, petitioner has not demonstrated that extraordinary relief is warranted, as the petition is not supported by any relevant documentation and lacks critical information about petitioner's conviction, sentence, as well as the parole board proceeding and determination. NRAP 21(a)(4) (stating that it is the petitioner's obligation to provide an appendix that includes all records that may be essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition).

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

" 47A 02 .2 -3)5S5- Most importantly, the petition does not include the parole board determination that petitioner challenges. NRAP 21(a)(4). Without this crucial information, we cannot evaluate the petition.1 Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

, C.J. Parrhguirre

J. Hardesty

414(.4-.0 J. Stiglich

cc: Goderick Villadelgado Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

'Petitioner has filed an erratum to the petition, which we have SUPREME COURT considered together with the petition. OF NEVADA

••)) 7A