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

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

In this original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus, petitioner appears to challenge the jurisdiction of the district court to sentence appellant and the district court’s refusal to entertain his motion to modify an illegal sentence.

Problematically, petitioner has not provided this court with exhibits or other documentation that would support his claims for relief. See NRAP 21(a)(4) (providing the petitioner shall submit an appendix containing all documents “essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition”). Therefore, without deciding the merits of the claims raised, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction in this matter, see NRAP 21(b); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (“Petitioner[ ] carr[ies] the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted.”). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   Given our disposition, we deny as moot petitioner’s motion for an order shortening time.