PORTER v. The State of Nevada, Real Party in Interest. (2020)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

In this original petition for a writ of mandamus, Justin D. Porter seeks an order directing the district court to suppress evidence and to either conduct a jury trial or dismiss Porter's case due to the violation of his right to a speedy trial.

Porter has a plain and adequate remedy at law for his grievances. He may argue on appeal from a judgment of conviction that the evidence should have been suppressed and that his speedy trial rights were violated. See NRS 177.055; see, e.g., Farmer v. State, 133 Nev. 693, 702, 405 P.3d 114, 122-23 (2017) (analyzing a direct appeal claim that appellant's speedy trial rights were violated). And while we are concerned about the extraordinary delay in resolving Porter's case, he has failed to meet “[his] burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted.” Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). For these reasons, we cannot conclude this court's intervention by way of an extraordinary writ is warranted at this time. See NRS 34.170; Poulos v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 98 Nev. 453, 455, 652 P.2d 1177, 1178 (1982) (“[T]he decision as to whether a petition will be entertained lies within the discretion of this court.”). Accordingly, without deciding the merits of the claims raised, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Due to the inordinately lengthy amount of time that has passed in getting this case to trial, I would require an answer from the State before making any decision as to this petition. For this reason, I respectfully dissent.