SKYLER DANIEL ANTHONIJSZ v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2026)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court decision to deny an application for diversion to a program of treatment under NRS 484C.340(1).

Having considered petitioner Skyler Daniel Anthonijsz's petition, we conclude that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is not warranted. See NRS 34.160: NRS 34.320; 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).

When the district court sentenced Anthonijsz in case no. 25-CR-0386, Anthonijsz had previously applied for diversion pursuant to NRS 484C.340(1) in a separate case and was therefore ineligible to apply again under NRS 484C.340(7). While Anthonijsz argues that the State unfairly waited until after Anthonijsz had been admitted to diversion in the first DUI case before charging the second DUI, Anthonijsz identifies no bases meriting relief in this regard. No statutory mechanism permitted the district court to treat the second application as an amendment to the application for diversion that Anthonijsz filed several months earlier in the other case. And the rule of lenity does not allow us to read a new provision into the diversion statute. See generally State v. Lucero, 127 Nev. 92, 99, 249 P.3d 1226, 1230 (2011) (“The rule of lenity is a rule of construction that demands that ambiguities in criminal statutes be liberally interpreted in the accused's favor.” (citation modified)). Further, though the petition purports to seek prohibition relief, Anthonijsz does not argue that the district court acted in excess of its jurisdiction, and the district court had jurisdiction over Anthonijsz and the criminal case. See Goicoechea v. Fourth Jud. Dist. Ct., 96 Nev. 287, 289, 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980) (providing that a writ of prohibition “will not issue if the court sought to be restrained had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter under consideration”). Insofar as Anthonijsz requests prohibition relief to stay the district court from imposing sentence during the pendency of this petition, that request is now moot in light of this disposition.

Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Bell, J.

Stiglich, J.

Cadish, J.