BRANTANO v. The State of Nevada, Real Party in Interest. (2021)

Supreme Court of Nevada.

Colton BRANTANO, Petitioner, v. The EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT of the State of Nevada, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF CLARK, Respondent, The State of Nevada, Real Party in Interest.

No. 82780

Decided: April 29, 2021

Colton Brantano Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original pro se petition appears to challenge petitioner's guilty plea agreement as invalid because it was not properly signed and filed by the district court.

Problematically, petitioner has not provided this court with all of the 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”).

Thus, we are not persuaded that petitioner has met his burden to show that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. See NRS 34.170; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (“Petitioners carry the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted.”); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (observing that “the issuance of a writ of mandamus or prohibition is purely discretionary with this court”). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network