Voss (Steven) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)

Nevada Supreme Court

Voss (Steven) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)

DecidedDecember 3, 2021

Docket83701

StatusPublished

This text of Voss (Steven) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State) (Voss (Steven) 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

Voss (Steven) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State), (Neb. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

STEVEN FLOYD VOSS, No. 83701 Petitioner, vs. THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, FILED IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE, DEC 0 3 2021 Respondent, A. BROWN CLE COURT and ey THE STATE OF NEVADA, CUERX

Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original pro se petition for extraordinary writ relief seeks a writ of mandamus and a writ of habeas corpus directing the district court to vacate its Second Corrected Judgment of Conviction issued May 28, 2018. A writ of mandamus is available only when no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of law, NRS 34.170, and this court has repeatedly held that an appeal is an adequate remedy at law that precludes writ relief. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004). It is petitioner's burden to demonstrate that extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan v. Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Petitioner indicates that the district court previously denied his postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus but fails to indicate why an appeal from such denial does not constitute an adequate remedy at law. NRS 34.170. Further, a challenge to a judgment of conviction must be raised in a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in the district court in the first instance. See NRS 34.724; NRS 34.738; NRAP 22. Problematically, petitioner has not provided this court with a copy of a district court order denying him relief in the first instance, See NRAP 21(a)(4) (providing the petitioner shall submit an appendix containing all docunients "essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition"). Therefore, without deciding the merits of the claims raised herein, we determine that our intervention is not warranted, see NRAP 21(b): Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (Petitioned ] carr[ies] the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted."). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

C.J. Hardesty

-1144Ci-V ,J. Parraguirre Stiglich

cc: Steven Floyd Voss Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) P47A Rap 2 '

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

STEVEN FLOYD VOSS, No. 83701 Petitioner, vs. THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, FILED IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE, DEC 0 3 2021 Respondent, A. BROWN CLE COURT and ey THE STATE OF NEVADA, CUERX

Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original pro se petition for extraordinary writ relief seeks a writ of mandamus and a writ of habeas corpus directing the district court to vacate its Second Corrected Judgment of Conviction issued May 28, 2018. A writ of mandamus is available only when no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of law, NRS 34.170, and this court has repeatedly held that an appeal is an adequate remedy at law that precludes writ relief. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004). It is petitioner's burden to demonstrate that extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan v. Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Petitioner indicates that the district court previously denied his postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus but fails to indicate why an appeal from such denial does not constitute an adequate remedy at law. NRS 34.170. Further, a challenge to a judgment of conviction must be raised in a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in the district court in the first instance. See NRS 34.724; NRS 34.738; NRAP 22. Problematically, petitioner has not provided this court with a copy of a district court order denying him relief in the first instance, See NRAP 21(a)(4) (providing the petitioner shall submit an appendix containing all docunients "essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition"). Therefore, without deciding the merits of the claims raised herein, we determine that our intervention is not warranted, see NRAP 21(b): Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (Petitioned ] carr[ies] the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted."). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

C.J. Hardesty

-1144Ci-V ,J. Parraguirre Stiglich

cc: Steven Floyd Voss Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney Washoe District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) P47A Rap 2 '

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Voss (Steven) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/voss-steven-vs-dist-ct-state-nev-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack