Opinion
No. 71723
01-12-2017
ORDER DENYING PETITION
The State seeks a writ of mandamus directing the district court to vacate its order severing the trial of Jessica Hernandez, the real party in interest, from that of her codefendant. We conclude that extraordinary relief is not warranted because petitioner has not demonstrated that the district court arbitrarily or capriciously exercised its discretion. NRS 34.160; see State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Armstrong), 127 Nev. 927, 931, 267 P.3d 777, 779 (2011) ("An arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion is one founded on prejudice or preference rather than on reason or contrary to the evidence or established rules of law." (citations and quotation marks omitted)). The district court considered relevant authority in its evaluation of the merits of the motion to sever. See Tabish v. State, 119 Nev. 293, 304, 72 P.3d 584, 591 (2003) (requiring court to consider whether "joinder is so manifestly prejudicial that it outweighs the dominant concern with judicial economy" (quotation marks omitted)). Even if another jurist could come to a different conclusion that would not be sufficient to warrant extraordinary relief. See Collier v. Legakes, 98 Nev. 307, 310, 646 P.2d 1219, 1221 (1982) ("[W]hile mandamus lies to enforce ministerial acts or duties and to require the exercise of discretion, it will not serve to control the proper exercise of that discretion or to substitute the judgment of this court for that of the lower tribunal."), overruled on other grounds by State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Zogheib), 130 Nev., Adv. Op. 18, 321 P.3d 882 (2014). Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
/s/_________, J.
Douglas
/s/_________, J.
Gibbons
/s/_________, J.
Pickering cc: Hon. Richard Scotti, District Judge
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Bush Law Group, LLC
Eighth District Court Clerk