IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

ROBERT SHARPE, III, No. 69919 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FILED CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE RICHARD SCOTTI, DISTRICT JUDGE, MAR 0 9 2016 Respondents, TRACIE K. LI•NDEMAN CLERK OF SUPREME COURT and BY DEPUTY CLERK THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION This original petition for a writ of mandamus' asks this court to direct the district court to continue a criminal trial in which petitioner is the defendant. 2 Because petitioner has an adequate remedy at law in the form of a direct appeal if he is convicted, see NRS 177.015(3); NRS 177.045; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224-25, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004) (explaining that right to appeal generally is an adequate remedy precluding writ relief even if appeal is not immediately available 'Petitioner also seeks a writ of prohibition. A writ of prohibition is not appropriate in this instance as the district court has jurisdiction over the matter and the petition does not allege that the court has exceeded its jurisdiction. See NRS 34.320 (availability of writ of prohibition); see also Nev. Const. art. 6, § 6(1) (jurisdiction of district courts).

2We note that the documents submitted with the petition suggest that the district court denied an oral motion for a mistrial. It is unclear whether petitioner requested a continuance.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A because challenged order is interlocutory in nature), we decline to entertain the petition. See NRS 34.170. We therefore ORDER the petition DENIED.

/A Hardesty

Saitta

Piektf. J.

Pickering

cc: Hon. Richard Scotti, District Judge The Law Office of Dan M. Winder, P.C.

Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A