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

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a district court order denying a pretrial petition for a writ of habeas corpus based on insufficiency of the evidence.¹ Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. Kussman v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 96 Nev. 544, 545-46, 612 P.2d 679, 680 (1980) (providing that original petitions challenging pretrial probable cause determinations are disfavored); see NRS 34.170; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004) (explaining that petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that writ relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (noting that writ relief is purely discretionary).

Additionally, petitioner has failed to provide this court with a written copy of the district court order he challenges.² This court normally will not consider a petition for extraordinary relief absent the challenged written district court order. Rust v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 689, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987) (“An oral pronouncement of judgment is not valid for any purpose.”); NRAP 21(a)(4) (appendix must contain documents necessary to understand petition).

Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Although petitioner styles his petition as one for a writ of “Prohibition/Mandamus,” the substance of his petition addresses only mandamus relief.

2.   In his petition, petitioner seeks leave to supplement the appendix with the district court order, however, to date, no such district court order has been provided. In light of this order denying the petition, we take no action on petitioner's request for leave to supplement the appendix.