Opinion
No. 64799
03-12-2014
THE STATE OF NEVADA, Petitioner, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE ROB BARE, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and AMY GIATTINO, Real Party in Interest.
An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority.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 court order vacating the real party in interest's justice court conviction for driving under the influence (DUI). Petitioner argues that the district court manifestly abused or arbitrarily or capriciously exercised its discretion because it failed to adhere to applicable appellate standards in vacating the real party in interest's justice court DUI conviction and ordering a new trial. District courts have final appellate jurisdiction in cases arising in municipal court, Nev. Const, art. 6, § 6; City of Las Vegas v. Carver, 92 Nev. 198, 198, 547 P.2d 688, 688 (1976), and generally, "we have declined to entertain writs that request review of a decision of the district court acting in its appellate capacity unless the district court has improperly refused to exercise its jurisdiction, has exceeded its jurisdiction, or has exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner," see State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Hedland), 116 Nev. 127, 134, 994 P.2d 692, 696-97 (2000). Because petitioner has not shown that the district court manifestly abused its discretion or exercised discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner or that there jurisdictional defect, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
__________, J.
Hardesty
__________, J.
Douglas
__________, J.
Cherry
cc: Hon. Rob Bare, District Judge
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Law Offices of John G. Watkins
Eighth District Court Clerk