Braunstein (Steve) v. Dist. Ct. (State) ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
    STEVEN SAMUEL BRAUNSTEIN, No. 83948
    Petitioner,
    vs.
    THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT | LL a Dp
    COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, "
    IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF JAN 20 2022
    CLARK,
    Respondent, CUERICOF SUPREME COURT
    a or — aay
    THE STATE OF NEVADA,
    Real Party in Interest.
    ORDER DENYING PETITION
    This is an original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus and/or
    coram nobis challenges petitioner’s conviction on the ground that the jury
    was not sworn in prior to trial. Having considered the petition, we are not
    persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. See NRS
    34.170; Pan v. Kighth Judicial Dist. Court, 
    120 Nev. 222
    , 224, 
    88 P.3d 840
    ,
    841 (2004) (noting that writ relief is proper only when there is no plain,
    speedy, and adequate remedy at law and explaining that petitioner bears
    the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted).
    Any application for such relief should be made to, and resolved
    by, 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
    Hull 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 fact”); Zobrist v. Sheriff, 
    96 Nev. 625
    , 626,
    
    614 P.2d 538
    , 539 (1980) (observing that writ petitions raising questions of
    fact should be considered “by a tribunal equipped to handle that task”):
    Supreme GOuRT
    OF
    NEVADA
    0) 19478 Be A-0203
    Supreme Covat
    OF
    NEVADA
    (0) 19874 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 court” 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); see also Trujillo v. State, 
    129 Nev. 706
    , 718, n.11, 
    310 P.3d 594
    , 602, n.11 (2013) (explaining that “the
    writ of coram nobis is not available in an original proceeding in this court”).
    Accordingly, we
    ORDER the petition DENIED.
    Patraguirre
    } \ aka. ta,C: g _d.
    ‘ Stiglic
    Hardesty
    ce: Steven Samuel Braunstein
    Attorney General/Carson City
    Clark County District Attorney
    Eighth District Court Clerk
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 83948

Filed Date: 1/20/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/21/2022