THOMAS WILLIAM RANDOLPH v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2023)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This emergency petition for a writ of mandamus challenges an August 9, 2023, district court ruling that denied petitioner's request to allow both of his appointed counsel to argue at closing, per NRS 175.151. Real party in interest has timely filed an answer, as directed.

Having considered the petition and supporting documents, as well as the answer, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted at this time. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (explaining that petitioner bears 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 this court has sole discretion in determining if a writ petition will be considered). In particular, petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law in the form of an appeal from any conviction, and the petition does not present circumstances that reveal urgency or a strong necessity for this court's intervention despite the availability of an effective legal remedy, particularly as trial is underway. See NRS 34.170; Pan, 120 Nev. at 223, 88 P.3d at 841; Salaiscooper v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 117 Nev. 892, 901-02, 34 P.3d 509, 515-16 (2001). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Cadish, J.

Pickering, J.

Bell, J.