MAYNES v. The State of Nevada, Real Party in Interest. (2026)

ORDER DENYING MANDAMUS AND/OR PROHIBITION PETITION

This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition challenging the district court's denial of petitioner's motion to compel discovery and motion to dismiss criminal charges.

A grand jury returned a true bill and petitioner was charged by amended indictment with luring or attempting to lure a person believed to be a child, a category B felony in violation of NRS 201.560(4)(a). Petitioner simultaneously filed motions to compel discovery and to dismiss based on due process violations and outrageous government conduct. The district court conducted a hearing, heard arguments from counsel, and denied both motions. This original petition followed.

Having considered the petition and documents submitted, 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). Petitioner has not demonstrated that a direct appeal from a judgment of conviction would not be “a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.” NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330. 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.