Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Oscar Art STANLEY, 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.
ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS AND DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS/PROHIBITION
In this original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus/prohibition, petitioner seeks a writ directing the district court to resentence him under amendments to Nevada's habitual criminal statute.
Appellant has filed a motion requesting the appointment of appellate counsel. Appellant is not entitled to appointed counsel at the state's expense in postconviction proceedings. See Brown v. McDaniel, 130 Nev. 565, 570, 331 P.3d 867, 871 (2014); see also Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 755 (1991). Accordingly, the motion is denied.
This court takes no action on appellant's motion to proceed in forma pauperis for this appeal. The filing fee has already been waived.
We have reviewed the documents submitted in this matter and, without deciding upon the merits of any claims raised therein, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction in this matter. See NRS 34.160; NRAP 21(b)(1); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004) (providing that writ relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law and the petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that writ relief is warranted). Petitioner contends that the district court erred in applying NRS 207.010 and seeks to have his conviction reversed and remanded to remove his habitual criminal sentencing enhancements. 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. Petitioner exercised this plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by appealing the district court's order denying his motion to modify sentence in docket no. 83420-COA. Accordingly, we,1
ORDER the Petition DENIED.
FOOTNOTES
1. Accordingly we take no action as to petitioner's notice filed on April 18, 2022.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 84380
Decided: April 28, 2022
Court: Supreme Court of Nevada.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)