Opinion
83521
10-14-2021
MICHAEL LUIS COTA, Petitioner, v. THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF DOUGLAS, Respondent, and THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
ORDER DENYING PETITION
HARDESTY C. J.
This is an original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus in which petitioner appears to complain that he was deprived of his right to appeal his conviction because that appeal was "entitled in the wrong county."
Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted because an appeal from the judgment of conviction constitutes a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy precluding writ relief. See NRS 34.170; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist, Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004) (explaining that a writ of mandamus is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law, that an appeal is generally an adequate remedy precluding writ relief, and that petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that writ relief is warranted). The Nevada court of appeals order affirming petitioner's judgment of conviction correctly listed the Ninth Judicial District Court and the Honorable Thomas W. Gregory in the jurisdictional statement. Cota v. State, Docket Nos. 77414-COA and 77415-COA (Order
of Affirmance, Ct. App., March 19, 2020). Therefore, petitioner was not deprived of his right to appeal, nor was that appeal "entitled in the wrong county." Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.
Given this disposition, any further requests by petitioner are denied as moot.
Parraguirre J., Stiglich J.