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

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges the district court's asserted refusal to allow petitioner to substitute counsel and continue trial.

Having review the petition and supporting documents, including the district court minutes, we are not satisfied that this court's intervention by way of an extraordinary writ is warranted. See NRS 34.160; Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (recognizing that the issuance of a writ of mandamus is discretionary). Petitioner's trial is scheduled to begin next week, and whether the district court legally erred or abused its discretion with regard to the substitution may be raised on appeal if he is convicted. See NRS 34.170; NRS 177.015(3); NRS 177.045; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004) (“[T]he right to appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy that precludes writ relief.”). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   In light of this order, petitioner's emergency motion to stay trial is denied as moot.