COLLINS v. The State of Nevada, Real Party in Interest. (2022)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

Having considered the petition, the answer, the reply, and the supporting documents, we are not persuaded that petitioner has demonstrated that our discretionary extraordinary intervention is warranted as petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (providing that this court has sole discretion in determining if a writ petition will be considered); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 223, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004) (explaining that petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted and “an appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy that precludes writ relief”); see also N.R.Cr.P. 9 (a defendant can file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to challenge “lack of probable cause or otherwise [challenge] the court's right or jurisdiction to proceed to the trial of a criminal charge.”); Gary v. Sheriff, Clark Cty., 96 Nev. 78, 80, 605 P.2d 212, 214 (1980). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.