RADONSKI v. The State of Nevada, Real Party in Interest. (2019)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying a motion to modify bail. We are not satisfied that this court's intervention by way of an extraordinary writ is warranted because petitioner has not demonstrated that the district court acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying the motion to modify bail. See NRS 34.160; see also State v. Eighth Judicial Dist, Court (Zogheib), 130 Nev. 158, 161, 321 P.3d 882, 884 (2014) (recognizing that a writ of mandamus “ ‘will not serve to control the proper exercise of [ ] discretion or to substitute the judgment of this court for that of the lower tribunal’ ” (quoting Collier v. Legakes, 98 Nev. 307, 310, 646 P.2d 1219, 1221 (1982))); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (recognizing that a petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted); State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Armstrong), 127 Nev. 927, 931-32, 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) (defining an arbitrary and capricious exercise of discretion as “one founded on prejudice or preference rather than reason, or contrary to the evidence or established rules of law” (internal citations and quotations omitted)). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.