PETER JASON HELFRICH v. THE STATE OF NEVADA AARON FORD AND BRIAN WILLIAMS WARDEN (2023)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT RELIEF

This pro se petition for extraordinary writ relief challenges a judgment of conviction based on appointed counsel's purported conflict of interest.

Having reviewed the petition and supporting documents,¹ we conclude that our extraordinary intervention is not warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Writ relief is precluded when an adequate and speedy legal remedy exists, and here, petitioner could have appealed from his judgment of conviction. Pan, 120 Nev. at 224-25, 88 P.3d at 841 (explaining that “writ relief is not available to correct an untimely notice of appeal”).

Moreover, to the extent petitioner seeks habeas relief, “[a]n application for an original writ of habeas corpus should be made to the appropriate district court” in the first instance. NEAP 22. This is so that factual and legal issues may be fully developed in the district court, giving this court an adequate record to review. See Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 604, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981) (recognizing that “an appellate court is not an appropriate forum in which to resolve disputed questions of fact”); State v. County of Douglas, 90 Nev. 272, 276-77, 524 P.2d 1271, 1274 (1974) (noting that “this court prefers that such an application [for writ relief] be addressed to the discretion of the appropriate district court” in the first instance), abrogated, on other grounds by Cortez Masto v. Gypsum Res., 129 Nev. 23, 33-34, 294 P.3d 404, 410-11 (2013). Here, while petitioner asserts that he has sought habeas relief in the di strict court, it is unclear whether the district court has resolved the petition. Once the petition is resolved, petitioner may appeal if aggrieved.

Thus, as petitioner has failed to demonstrate that our intervention by extraordinary writ is warranted, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction in this matter, see NEAP 21(b), and we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Stiglich, C.J.

Cadish, J.

Herndon, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Petitioner's August 8, 2023, motion for leave to file supplemental exhibits in this case is granted; the clerk of this court shall detach from the motion and file the supplemental exhibits, which we have considered. Nevertheless, we remind petitioner that only documents necessary to our review of the matter before us should be submitted in a particular case, NRAP 21(a)(4); omnibus appendices containing documents pertaining to multiple cases petitioner has pending in this court are not appropriate.