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

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenging a district court order finding petitioner Oronde Coleman competent. Coleman contends the district court relied on impermissible expert testimony, failed to make sufficient findings, and found competency without substantial evidence.

Because Coleman asks us to vacate an order rather than asserting the district court acted in excess of its jurisdiction, we consider the petition as one for mandamus. See NRS 34.320. A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act which the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, NRS 34.160, or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion, Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 603-04, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981). A writ of mandamus will not issue, however, if the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. NRS 34.170. Further, mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and it is within the discretion of this court to determine if a petition will be considered. See Poulos v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 98 Nev. 453, 455, 652 P.2d 1177, 1178 (1982); see also State ex rel. Dep't Transp. v. Thompson, 99 Nev. 358, 360, 662 P.2d 1338, 1339 (1983). The petitioner has the burden of showing this court's extraordinary intervention is warranted. Poulos, 98 Nev. at 455, 652 P.2d at 1178.

Coleman has failed to show our intervention is warranted. The record shows the competency court carefully considered conflicting expert testimony and based its finding of competency on all the evidence presented. Coleman also fails to show the district court manifestly abused its discretion by admitting the testimony of the two evaluators appointed by the court. See Williams v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 127 Nev. 518, 524, 262 P.3d 360, 364 (2011) (recognizing that mandamus is not generally an appropriate vehicle to challenge the district court's discretionary decision to admit expert testimony). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   In light of our disposition, we deny Coleman's March 16, 2026, motion for a stay.