BRAUNSTEIN v. The State of Nevada, Real Party in Interest. (2022)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This is an original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus and/or coram nobis challenges petitioner's conviction on the ground that the jury was not sworn in prior to trial. Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. See NRS 34.170; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004) (noting that writ relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law and explaining that petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted).

Any application for such relief should be made to, and resolved by, the district court in the first instance so that factual and legal issues are fully developed, giving this court an adequate record to review. See Round Hill Gen. Imp. Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 604, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981) (recognizing that “an appellate court is not an appropriate forum in which to resolve disputed questions of fact”); Zobrist v. Sheriff, 96 Nev. 625, 626, 614 P.2d 538, 539 (1980) (observing that writ petitions raising questions of fact should be considered “by a tribunal equipped to handle that task”); State v. Cty. of Douglas, 90 Nev. 272, 276-77, 524 P.2d 1271, 1274 (1974) (noting that “this court prefers that such an application [for writ relief] be addressed to the discretion of the appropriate district court” in the first instance), abrogated on other grounds by Attorney Gen. v. Gypsum Res., 129 Nev. 23, 33-34, 294 P.3d 404, 410-11 (2013); see also Trujillo v. State, 129 Nev. 706, 718, n.11, 310 P.3d 594, 602, n.11 (2013) (explaining that “the writ of coram nobis is not available in an original proceeding in this court”). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.