THEODORE STEVENS v. STEVEN WOLFSON CLARK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND JONATHAN VANBOSKERCK CHIEF DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY (2025)

ORDER DENYING MANDAMUS PETITION

This is an original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus asking this court to compel the respondent State in the appeal in docket no. 87904 to address the propriety of questions he was asked during a custodial interrogation.

In the underlying case, petitioner was convicted after a five-day jury trial in 2007 of first-degree murder and sentenced to serve a prison term of life without the possibility of parole. 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”). Petitioner bears the burden of showing that extraordinary relief is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). We conclude that petitioner has failed to demonstrate our intervention by extraordinary writ 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). Therefore, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction in this matter. See NRAP 21(b).

Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Herndon, C.J.

Parraguirre, J.

Stiglich, J.