Opinion
No. 69244
12-16-2015
An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority. SCR 123.
ORDER DENYING PETITION
This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district order denying a pretrial petition for a writ of habeas corpus in which petitioner challenged the State's separation of the factual bases alleged in one count of lewdness with a child under the age of 14 into two lewdness counts. Petitioner argues that the district court arbitrarily and capriciously denied his pretrial habeas petition because the State presented no evidence of a break in time between the alleged acts to permit multiple convictions for lewdness. Our review of a pretrial probable cause determination through an original writ petition is disfavored, see Kussman v. District Court, 96 Nev. 544, 545-46, 612 P.2d 679, 680 (1980), and petitioner has not demonstrated that his challenge to the probable cause determination fits the exceptions we have made for purely legal issues, see Ostman v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 563, 565, 816 P.2d 458, 459-60 (1991); State v. Babayan, 106 Nev. 155, 174, 787 P.2d 805, 819-20 (1990).
Petitioner argues that the district applied the incorrect legal standard in reviewing his pretrial habeas petition. Because he has not shown that the district court manifestly abused its discretion in this regard, no relief is warranted. See State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Armstrong), 127 Nev., Adv. Op. 84, 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) (defining manifest abuse and arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion). --------
It is so ORDERED.
/s/_________, J.
Saitta /s/_________, J.
Gibbons /s/_________, J.
Pickering cc: Hon. Douglas Smith, District Judge
Legal Resource Group
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk