CLEMONS v. JOHNSON (2021)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenges petitioner's sentence. Petitioner argues he was not allowed to speak at his sentencing hearing.

At the outset, we note that 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”); 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.”).

Moreover, having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that writ relief is warranted because petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy available to him by way of an appeal from the district court's denial of such relief in the first instance. See NRAP 22 (“An application for an original writ of habeas corpus should be made to the appropriate district court. If an application is made to the district court and denied, the proper remedy is by appeal from the district court's order denying the writ.”); see also Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841 (writ relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   Finally, it appears petitioner requested this court to make copies of his proofs of service and to effectuate service. We decline. To the extent petitioner failed to effectuate and provide timely proof of service, that constitutes an additional basis upon which to deny relief. NRAP 21(a)(1).