DANIEL TIMOTHY LEE v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2026)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This is a pro se original petition for a writ of prohibition challenging an amended judgment of conviction. A writ of prohibition arrests the proceedings of a tribunal that is acting in excess of, or without, jurisdiction. NRS 34.320. The decision to entertain a petition for extraordinary writ relief is within our sole discretion, and the petitioner has the burden of demonstrating that such relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Having considered the petition and attached documents, we conclude that petitioner has not demonstrated that extraordinary relief is warranted. And, to the extent petitioner asserts his sentence was imposed in violation of Nevada law, he has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law to challenge his sentence—a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in the district court in the first instance. See NRS 34.724(1) (recognizing a convicted person who challenges the validity of their sentence may file a postconviction habeas petition to get relief from that sentence); Harris v. State, 130 Nev. 435, 4 37, 329 P.3d 619, 621 (2014) (“A post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus is the exclusive remedy for challenging the validity of a conviction or sentence aside from direct review of a judgment of conviction on appeal and remedies which are incident to proceedings in the trial court.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.