Opinion
No. 62088.
12-12-2012
Dennis LOVELADY, Petitioner, v. The EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF the STATE of Nevada, in and for the COUNTY OF CLARK; and the Honorable Elissa F. Cadish, District Judge, Respondents, and The State of Nevada, Real Party in Interest.
Potter Law Offices Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney
Potter Law Offices
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
ORDER DENYING PETITION
This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order denying petitioner's motion to re-sentence him. Petitioner argues that the district court manifestly abused its discretion by refusing to fairly and fully consider evidence presented in support of the motion, instead summarily denying the motion, and by misapprehending controlling authority that permitted the district court to consider his proffered evidence in ruling on the motion. Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we conclude that petitioner failed to demonstrate that the district court manifestly abused its discretion or acted arbitrarily and capriciously, see NRS 34.160 ; State v. Dist. Ct. (Armstrong), 127 Nev. ––––, ––––, 276 P.3d 777, 779–80 (2011), or exceeded its jurisdiction, see NRS 34.320, by denying his motion to resentence. Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.