From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tarango v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Jan 2, 2020
No. 80265 (Nev. App. Jan. 2, 2020)

Opinion

No. 80265

01-02-2020

MAYRA TARANGO, Petitioner, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE MARY KAY HOLTHUS, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.


ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to require the district court at trial to prevent any mention or other reference to the charge of murder pending in a separate case (C-17-322765). A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. See NRS 34.160; Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). A writ of mandamus will not issue, however, if the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. See NRS 34.170; Int'l Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 558. Further, mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and it is within the discretion of this court to determine if a petition will be considered. See Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991). Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).

Having considered the documents, we conclude that petitioner has failed to demonstrate that extraordinary writ relief is warranted because the issue raised can be raised on appeal if petitioner is found guilty. Accordingly, we deny the petition. See NRAP 21(b)(1); Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851.

We note that petitioner did not provide this court with a written district court order reflecting the ruling she challenges with constitutes an additional basis on which to deny relief. Div. of Child and Family Servs. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 445, 451, 92 P.3d 1239, 1243 (2004); Rust v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 689, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987).
In light of this order, we deny as moot petitioner's emergency motion under NRAP 27(e), for stay of proceedings pending resolution of this petition for a writ of mandamus.

It is so ORDERED.

/s/_________, C.J.

Gibbons /s/_________, J.
Tao /s/_________, J.
Bulla cc: Honorable Mary Kay Holthus, District Judge

Marisa C. Border

Attorney General/Carson City

Clark County District Attorney

Eighth District Court Clerk


Summaries of

Tarango v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Jan 2, 2020
No. 80265 (Nev. App. Jan. 2, 2020)
Case details for

Tarango v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court

Case Details

Full title:MAYRA TARANGO, Petitioner, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE…

Court:COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

Date published: Jan 2, 2020

Citations

No. 80265 (Nev. App. Jan. 2, 2020)