HECTOR ADRIAN PARAMO CERVANTES v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2024)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus ordering the district court to dismiss three counts from the indictment, or, in the alternative, to sever them from the rest of the indictment. Having considered the petition, we conclude that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is not warranted. See NRS 34.160; Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 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 Jud. Dist. Ct., 107 Nev, 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition).

First, petitioner challenges the denial of his pretrial motion to sever the charges against him. Because petitioner may challenge the denial of his motion on direct appeal if convicted, see NRS 177.015(3); NRS 177.045 (“Upon the appeal, any decision of the court in an intermediate order or proceeding, forming a part of the record, may be reviewed”), we decline to exercise original jurisdiction in this matter. See NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330; Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841 (“[T]he right to appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy that precludes writ relief.”). Second, petitioner challenges the sufficiency of the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing. This court, however, disfavors writ challenges to pretrial probable cause determinations, Kussman v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 96 Nev. 544, 545-46, 612 P.2d 679, 680 (1980), unless they involve purely legal issues, Ostman v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 107 Nev. 563, 565, 816 P.2d 458, 459-60 (1991). Petitioner's challenges do not present purely legal issues.

Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Cadish, C.J.

Stiglich, J.

Herndon, J.