BLANDINO v. The State of Nevada, Real Party in Interest. (2022)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

Kim Dennis Blandino has filed an original emergency petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition and/or certiorari and/or habeas corpus seeking a stay of his probation and asserting the judge improperly sentenced him and illegal terms of probation are contained in his judgment of conviction.

Having reviewed the petition and supporting documentation, we conclude that our extraordinary intervention is not warranted. See NRS 34.160; NRS 34.320; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (explaining that petitioners bear the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (providing that writ relief is purely discretionary). Such relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. See Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 228, 88 P.3d at 841, 844; NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330. An appeal is generally an adequate remedy precluding writ relief. Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. Petitioner currently has a direct appeal pending from his judgment of conviction in Docket No. 84433 and the relief he is seeking and the challenges to his judgment of conviction can be raised in the context of his direct appeal. Accordingly, because petitioner has an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.