Yanko (Alexander) v. Dist. Ct. (State)

Nevada Supreme Court

Yanko (Alexander) v. Dist. Ct. (State)

DecidedJune 24, 2022

Docket84798

StatusPublished

This text of Yanko (Alexander) v. Dist. Ct. (State) (Yanko (Alexander) 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

Yanko (Alexander) v. Dist. Ct. (State), (Neb. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

ALEXANDER P. YANKO, No. 84798 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT FILED COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF JUN 4 2022 CLARK, A. BROWhI Respondent, and THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This is an original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus seeking either the dismissal of a criminal case or the granting of a new trial. This court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, and the issuance of such extraordinary relief is within this court's sole discretion. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 4; D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). Petitioner bears the burden to show that extraordinary relief is warranted, and such relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004). Although petitioner provided a brief affidavit wherein he references a jury trial and the allegedly improper admission of evidence, he has not provided this court with any record or documentation in support of his claims and necessary for this court's consideration of the petition. See NRAP 21(a)(4) (providing that petitioner shall submit an appendix containing all documents "essential to understand[ing] the matters set forth

rzz zoo in the petition"). We conclude that petitioner has failed to demonstrate our intervention by extraordinary writ is warranted. Further, to the extent that petitioner has counsel, he must proceed by and through counsel of record. Therefore, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction in this matter. See NRAP 21(b). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Pidad.wr ? C.J. Parraguirre

Hardesty

A-Visa,0 J. Stiglich

cc: Alexander P. Yanko Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0( I t147A V•;". 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

ALEXANDER P. YANKO, No. 84798 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT FILED COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF JUN 4 2022 CLARK, A. BROWhI Respondent, and THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This is an original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus seeking either the dismissal of a criminal case or the granting of a new trial. This court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, and the issuance of such extraordinary relief is within this court's sole discretion. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 4; D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). Petitioner bears the burden to show that extraordinary relief is warranted, and such relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004). Although petitioner provided a brief affidavit wherein he references a jury trial and the allegedly improper admission of evidence, he has not provided this court with any record or documentation in support of his claims and necessary for this court's consideration of the petition. See NRAP 21(a)(4) (providing that petitioner shall submit an appendix containing all documents "essential to understand[ing] the matters set forth

rzz zoo in the petition"). We conclude that petitioner has failed to demonstrate our intervention by extraordinary writ is warranted. Further, to the extent that petitioner has counsel, he must proceed by and through counsel of record. Therefore, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction in this matter. See NRAP 21(b). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Pidad.wr ? C.J. Parraguirre

Hardesty

A-Visa,0 J. Stiglich

cc: Alexander P. Yanko Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0( I t147A V•;". 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Yanko (Alexander) v. Dist. Ct. (State), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yanko-alexander-v-dist-ct-state-nev-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack