GRIMES v. The State of Nevada, Real Party in Interest. (2020)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus seeks a writ directing the district court to grant petitioner's motion to correct 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”).

We reiterate that “[p]etitioner[ ] carr[ies] the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted.” Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). A writ of mandamus will not issue when petitioner has a “plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.” Gumm v. State, Dep't of Educ., 121 Nev. 371, 375, 113 P.3d 853, 856 (2005); NRS 34.170. Petitioner has not established that an eventual appeal does not afford an adequate legal remedy. Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841 (“[T]he right to appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy that precludes writ relief.”). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.