HAYES v. The State of Nevada, Real Party in Interest. (2021)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

In this original pro se “emergency” petition for a writ of prohibition,¹ James Howard Hayes, Jr., seeks dismissal of his conviction. We have reviewed the documents submitted in this matter, and without deciding upon the merits of any claims raised therein, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction. See NRS 34.160; NRS 34.170; NRS 34.320; NRS 34.330; NRAP 21(b)(1); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (“Petitioner[ ] carr[ies] the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted.”). Hayes's claims challenge the validity of his conviction, and a challenge to the validity of 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.² NRS 34.724(2)(b); NRS 34.738(1). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We note that, while Hayes refers to prohibition through his petition, he also cites to the statutes relevant to a writ of mandamus. For the reasons discussed herein, he is not entitled to relief regardless of how he styled his petition.

2.   We express no opinion as to whether Hayes could meet the procedural requirements of NRS chapter 34.