DOYLE v. STATE (2025)

ORDER DENYING MANDAMUS PETITION

This is an original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus asking this court to correct an illegal sentence.

Petitioner pleaded guilty in 2015 to sexual assault of a child and lewdness with a child under the age of 14 years and was sentenced to serve consecutive prison terms totaling 45 years to life in the aggregate. In his petition, petitioner claims that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over his case and the authority to sentence him. The court of appeals previously considered and rejected this claim. See Doyle v. State, No. 85536, 2023 WL 2720871 (Nev. Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2023) (Order of Affirmance).

Having considered the petition, we are not convinced that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. 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 that such relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 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). We also note that petitioner has not provided this court with any documentation or exhibits in support of his petition and necessary for this court's consideration of the petition. See NRAP 21(a)(4) (providing that petitioners must submit an appendix containing all documents “essential to understand[ing] the matters set forth in the petition”).

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 NRAP 21(b). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.