EDWARD JACOB IGLEHART v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2023)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This emergency petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court oral ruling denying an oral motion to dismiss the criminal case against petitioner due to an assertedly improper continuance of trial.

Having considered the petition and appendix, we conclude that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is not warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). Additionally, with trial scheduled to begin soon, it appears that petitioner has an adequate legal remedy in the form of an appeal from any conviction. See NRS 34.170; Pan, 120 Nev. at 223, 88 P.3d at 841; cf. 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.