WILLIAM ERRICO v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2023)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This is an original petition for a writ of prohibition or mandamus challenging the district court's denial of petitioner's motion to dismiss a criminal indictment.

Having considered the petition, the State's answer, petitioner's reply, and supporting documentation, we are not convinced that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted because petitioner has not demonstrated that a direct appeal from a judgment of conviction would not be “a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.’’ NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). Therefore, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction in this matter. See NRAP 21(h). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.¹

Stiglich, C.J.

Cadish, J.

Herndon, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   In light of this disposition, we deny the following: (1) petitioner's motion for a stay of the district court proceedings, (2) the State's motion to strike petitioner's reply in support of his petition, and (3) “Petitioner's Motion for Court to Determine Whether Requested Record is a Record of the Number of Jurors Concurring in Finding an Indictment as Required by Nevada Law; and Disregard from Consideration for its Noncompliance with Nevada Law.”