Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

474 P.3d 834

Brock (Johnny) Vs. State

Nevada Supreme Court

Decided October 23, 2020

Nevada Supreme Court · decided 2020-10-23

Applies NV 34 § 34.170

Relies on Round Hill General Improvement District v. Newman · Pan v. Dist. Ct. · Pan v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. County of Clark

Decided 2020-10-23

       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA


JOHNNY BROCK,                                            No, 81909
Petitioner,
vs.
THE STATE OF NEVADA,
                                                              FILED
Respondent.                                                   OCT 2 3 2020


                      ORDER DENYING PETITION

            This original pro se petition seeks a writ of mandamus to
compel a determination that he is eligible for parole. Having considered the
petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is
warranted. See NRS 34.170; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 
120 Nev. 222, 224
, 
88 P.3d 840, 841
 (2004) (noting that a writ of mandamus is proper
only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law and
explaining that petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that writ
relief is warranted). Petitioner has not provided this court with a copy of a
district court order denying him writ relief in the first instance. See NRAP
21(a)(4) (providing the petitioner shall submit an appendix containing all
documents "essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition").
            Even assuming that the relief sought here could be properly
obtained through a petition for writ relief, any application for such relief
should be made to the district court in the first instance so that factual and
legal issues are fully developed, giving this court an adequate record to
review. See Round Hill Gen. Imp. Dist. v. Newman, 
97 Nev. 601, 604
, 
637 P.2d 534, 536
 (1981) (recognizing that "an appellate court is not an
appropriate forum in which to resolve disputed questions of face and
determining that when there are factual issues presented, this court will


                                                                   _ .(.1001.1
                                                              20
                        ,       •   ,
                      not exercise its discretion to entertain a petition for extraordinary relief
                      even though "irnportant public interests are involved"); State v. Cty. of
                      Douglas, 
90 Nev. 272, 276-77
, 
524 P.2d 1271, 1274
 (1974) (noting that "this
                      court prefers that such an application [for writ relief] be addressed to the
                      discretion of the appropriate district coure in the first instance), abrogated
                      on other grounds by Attorney Gen. v. Gypsum Res., 
129 Nev. 23, 33-34
, 
294 P.3d 404, 410-11
 (2013). Accordingly, we
                                     ORDER the petition DENIED.




                                                Pickering


                            /   A,,               , J.

                      Hardesty                                     Silver




                      cc:       Johnny Brock
                                Attorney General/Carson City




SUPREME COURT
        OF
     NEVADA


(0) I947A    0411D0                                            2
                                                     f. "fAV
                                                                      •.:iiiNgf.i::akte,A1-44173
                                                                                    •re-

/474/p3d/834 · .json · Public domain