Nevada Supreme Court, 2022

Fox (Derek) v. Dist. Ct. (State)

Fox (Derek) v. Dist. Ct. (State)
Nevada Supreme Court · Decided June 30, 2022

Fox (Derek) v. Dist. Ct. (State)

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

DEREK RYAN FOX, No. 84815 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF JUN 30 2022 CLARK, ELIZABETH A. BROWN Respondent, CLERK OF SUPREME COURT and BY c• DEPUTY CLERK THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION This is an original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus seeking the dismissal of criminal charges.

This court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus and the issuance of such extraordinary relief is within this court's sole discretion. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 4; D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). Petitioner bears the burden to show that extraordinary relief is warranted and such relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004).

Having considered the petition and supporting documentation, we are not convinced that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted because petitioner has not demonstrated that a direct appeal from a judgment of conviction would not be "a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." NRS 34.170; Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844; Srnith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). Additionally, in resolving a previous original petition filed by petitioner, this court instructed him to proceed by and through his counsel of record. See Fox v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, Docket No. 81202 (Order Denying Petition for a Writ of Mandamus or Prohibition, June 4, 2020). Therefore, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction in this matter. See NRAP 21(b). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.'

Parraguirre

/ A, Hardesty

Al4C4-0 Stiglich

cc: Derek Ryan Fox Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

1Petitioner's motion to exceed word/page limit is granted. NRAP 21(d) SUPREME COURT & 32(a)(7)(D).

OF NEVADA

(th I 947A

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA DEREK RYAN FOX, No. 84815 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT fe [ iL. = D> COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, ~ IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF a JUN 3 0 202? CLARK, Respondent, CLERK OF SUPRISE COURT and DEPUTY CLERK THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest. ORDER DENYING PETITION This is an original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus seeking the dismissal of criminal charges. This court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus and the issuance of such extraordinary relief is within this court’s sole discretion. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 4; D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). Petitioner bears the burden to show that extraordinary relief is warranted and such relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. See Pan v. Highth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004). Having considered the petition and supporting documentation, we are not convinced that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted because petitioner has not demonstrated that a direct appeal from a judgment of conviction would not be “a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.” NRS 34.170; Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844; Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 Supheme Court OF NEVADA (Ch 1947A ea , ; P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (recognizing that writ reliefis an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). Additionally, in resolving a previous original petition filed by petitioner, this court instructed him to proceed by and through his counsel of record. See Fox v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, Docket No. 81202 (Order Denying Petition for a Writ of Mandamus or Prohibition, June 4, 2020). Therefore, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction in this matter. See NRAP 21(b). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.? Men back, Jd. Hardesty A969 , ol Stiglich ce: Derek Ryan Fox Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk 'Petitioner’s motion to exceed word/page limit is granted. NRAP 21(d) Supreme Court & 32(a)(7)(D) . NEVADA () MTA

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.