State ex rel. Miller v. Eighth Judicial District Court
State ex rel. Miller v. Eighth Judicial District Court
Opinion of the Court
OPINION
The Justice Court of Las Vegas reduced the amount of a bail bond forfeiture by a surety from $3,000 to $1,500. The State filed a notice of appeal to the district court. The district court dismissed the appeal on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction. Apparently the court found that a bail bond forfeiture was a criminal proceeding from which the State had no statutory right of appeal. Sec NRS 189.120.
This court has not previously addressed the question of whether a bail bond forfeiture proceeding is civil or criminal in
Since a bail bond forfeiture action is a civil proceeding, the filing of an appeal therefrom is governed by the civil rules. See United States v. Plechner, supra; People v. Montaigne, 407 N.E.2d 1107 (Ill.App. 1980). Therefore, the State has a right of appeal to the district court, Nev. Const, art. 6, § 6; NRS 3.190(2); NJRCP 72, and the district court erred in its determination that it lacked jurisdiction. Where a district court erroneously decides that it lacks jurisdiction over a matter, mandamus is the proper remedy. Buckholt v. District Court, 94 Nev. 631, 584 P.2d 672 (1978); Benson v. District Court, 85 Nev. 327, 454 P.2d 892 (1969).
Accordingly, a writ of mandamus shall issue forthwith directing the respondent court to vacate its order of dismissal and to hear the State’s appeal in this matter.
Writ granted.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- STATE OF NEVADA, Through ROBERT J. MILLER, District Attorney of Clark County, Nevada v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK, and the HONORABLE ADDELIAR D. GUY
- Cited By
- 3 cases
- Status
- Published