STEINHAUER v. SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR COUNTY OF WASHOE (2023)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

Mandamus and prohibition are extraordinary remedies and whether to consider a petition seeking such relief is within this court's sole discretion. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991). Extraordinary relief, however, will not issue if the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330.

Steinhauer 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 claims the sentence was imposed in violation of Nevada law may file a postconviction habeas petition to get relief from the sentence); Harris v. State, 130 Nev. 435, 437, 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 the proceedings in the trial court.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). It appears that such an appeal is currently pending in Docket No. 86705. And it appears that the Nevada Court of Appeals previously considered and addressed similar claims regarding the illegality of petitioner's sentence in Steinhauer v. State, No. 83828-COA, 2022 WL 1439502 (Nev. Ct. App. May 5, 2022) (Order of Affirmance). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.