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

ORDER DENYING PETITION

In this original petition for a writ of mandamus, Jack Leal seeks an order vacating his sentence and directing the district court to appoint counsel and conduct a new sentencing hearing. Leal contends he only learned of his presentence investigation report after he was sentenced and, as a result, was unable to challenge errors contained therein. He further contends those alleged errors have worked to his detriment both at sentencing and in prison.

A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act which the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, NRS 34.160, or to control a manifest abuse or arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion, Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 603-04, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981). A writ of mandamus will not issue, however, if the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. NRS 34.170. Further, mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and it is within the discretion of this court to determine if a petition will be considered. See Poulos v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 98 Nev. 453, 455, 652 P.2d 1177, 1178 (1982); see also State ex rel. Dep't of Transp. v. Thompson, 99 Nev. 358, 360, 662 P.2d 1338, 1339 (1983). “Petitioner[ ] carr[ies] the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted.” Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).

Leal had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. See Stockmeier v. State, Bd. of Parole Comm'rs, 127 Nev. 243, 250, 255 P.3d 209, 214 (2011). Accordingly, we conclude Leal has failed to demonstrate that our intervention by way of extraordinary relief is warranted, and we

ORDER the petition DENIED.