RICHARD WILLIAM KOVACH v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2026)

ORDER GRANTING EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This emergency petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order revoking petitioner's own recognizance release.

On February 25, 2026, a pretrial services officer filed a recommendation in the district court to modify petitioner's pretrial services supervision, asserting that petitioner had violated a no-contact condition of release and had been “rearrested” on a new charge of violating a domestic violence emergency protection order. Less than two hours later, the district court entered an order revoking petitioner's own recognizance release. The order stated that petitioner would remain in custody pending further order of the court and indicated that the court would set a hearing on his custody status upon request from counsel.

Petitioner now challenges that order by emergency petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition, asserting that the court unlawfully revoked his own recognizance release without an evidentiary hearing, per NRS 178.4851(7) and Johnston v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 138 Nev. 700, 708, 518 P.3d 94, 102 (2022). Petitioner asserts that counsel has filed two motions seeking a hearing on his custody status but the court has not responded or set a hearing.

NRS 178.4851(7) provides that the court may revoke bail and remand a person into custody based on a violation of a condition of pretrial release “after providing the person with reasonable notice and an opportunity for a hearing.” In Johnston, we recognized that, while NRS 178.4851 does not set out specific time limits, a person “detained for allegedly violating a condition of pretrial release has a due process right to a prompt hearing after arrest,” Johnston, 138 Nev. at 707, 518 P.3d at 102. In that case, the petitioner had been held in custody for over a month without a hearing. Id. at 706, 518 P.3d at 101.

Here, petitioner's own recognizance release was revoked without notice or hearing, and it has been over 15 days since petitioner was rearrested and taken into custody, apparently with no hearing scheduled. We conclude that the district court improperly failed to afford petitioner a prompt hearing per Johnston and NRS 178.4851(7) before revoking his own recognizance release. Accordingly, while we decline to reinstate petitioner's own recognizance release or prohibit his continued detention absent a hearing, we conclude that his alternative request to compel an immediate hearing is warranted. See State v. Second, Jud. Dist. Ct., 136 Nev. 191, 194, 462 P.3d 671, 673 (2020) (recognizing that mandamus may issue to compel an act required by law). We thus

ORDER the petition GRANTED IN PART AND DIRECT THE CLERK OF THIS COURT TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS instructing the district court to immediately conduct the required hearing.

Stiglich, J.

Cadish, J.

Lee, J.