IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

FREDRICK J. BENSON, No. 74498 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK, Respondent, and THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER GRANTING PETITION This petition for a writ of mandamus seeks an order directing the respondent to file and consider his motion to obtain a copy of a sealed record (presentence investigation report). Petitioner indicates that he has previously filed a motion to obtain a copy of the presentence investigation report but that his motion was not considered and was returned unfiled by the district court clerk because he was allegedly represented by counsel. In response, the real party in interest argues that the petition should be denied because the motion was filed on September 18, 2017, and petitioner has not complied with the district court's directions to file a motion to unseal the records. Having reviewed the documents presented to this court, we conclude that relief is warranted. See NRS 34.160; NRS 34.170. Although the State is correct that the motion to obtain a copy of the sealed record was filed in the district court, and thus petitioner is not entitled to any relief on this basis, the motion rem ains pending in the district court and has not been considered. And contrary to the State's assertion, petitioner requested that

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A the presentence investigation report be unsealed in his September 2017 motion.' Accordingly, we ORDER the petition GRANTED AND DIRECT THE CLERK OF THIS COURT TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS instructing the district court to resolve the motion filed on September 18, 2017, within 30 days from the date of this order.

Parraguirre

.iekrbau-0 J. Stiglich

cc: Hon. Carolyn Ellsworth, District Judge Fredrick J. Benson Attorney General/Carson City Clark County Distri ct Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

'While the presentence investigation report may be unsealed for the purpose of providing a copy to petitioner, it may not be made a part of the public record. See N RS 17 6 .156(5). Further, contrary to the correspondence from the district court clerk, petitioner may not be required to pay a fee for a copy of the presentence investigation report. See NRS 19.013(5). SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) I 947A