eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Nevada Supreme Court
 2022-01

Shoemaker (Tawney) v. Dist. Ct. (State) ( 2022 )


Menu:
 
  •                             IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
TAWNEY LYNN SHOEMAKER,                                 No. 83738
Petitioner,
vs.
THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF
FILED
CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE                                JAN 1 4 2022
MARY KAY HOLTHUS, DISTRICT
ELTZABETN A. BROWN
JUDGE,                                               CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
Respondents,                                                    CLERK
and
THE STATE OF NEVADA,
Real Party in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION
This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus or
prohibition seeking to have criminal charges dismissed or, alternatively,
certain evidence suppressed.
Petitioner is charged with driving under the influence and
resisting a public officer. Petitioner's arguments raised in this petition
(regarding whether the arresting officer had reasonable suspicion of DUI
and whether petitioner was in actual control of her vehicle sufficient for a
DUI conviction) are fact-bound, with the framework for each issue involving
a multi-factor factual analysis. See generally State v. Rincon,
    122 Nev. 1170
    , 1173-74,
    147 P.3d 233
    , 235-36 (2006) (addressing reasonable
suspicion in the DUI context and explaining that in assessing the
reasonableness of the officer's actions, "the evidence is viewed under the
totality of the circumstancee); Rogers v. State,
    105 Nev. 230
    , 233-34,
    773 P.2d 1226
    , 1228 (1989) (providing factors that the trier-of-fact must weigh
to determine whether the defendant has actual physical control of a vehicle
SUPREWIE COURT
OF
NEVADA
101 1947A
•
for the purposes of NRS 484C.110 (DUI)). Normally this court will not
address matters that are fact-bound. See Buckwalter v. Eighth Judicial
Dist. Court,
    126 Nev. 200
    , 201,
    234 P.3d 920
    , 921 (2010) (noting that this
court generally only entertain extraordinary relief in the context of a motion
to dismiss when a writ petition presents questions of law and is not fact-
bound).
In advancing these arguments, petitioner has failed to
demonstrate that she lacks an adequate legal remedy by way of appeal and
that extraordinary relief is warranted, and we therefore decline to exercise
our discretion to entertain this petition. NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330; Cote H.
v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court,
    124 Nev. 36
    , 39,
    175 P.3d 906
    , 908 (2008)
("[N]either a writ of prohibition nor a writ of mandamus is appropriate if
the petitioner has a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law." (internal quotation marks omitted)); Pan v. Eighth Judicial
Dist. Court,
    120 Nev. 222
    , 228,
    88 P.3d 840
    , 844 (2004) (Petitioners carry
the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted.");
Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court,
    107 Nev. 674
    , 677,
    818 P.2d 849
    , 851
(1991) (providing that writ relief is purely discretionary). Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.'
4116$16.`er:71117.
Parraguirre
Hardesty                                   Stiglich
'Petitioner's motion to allow video evidence to be filed in this matter
is denied. We direct the clerk of the court to return, unfiled, petitioner's
copy of video evidence.
2
cc:   Hon. Mary Kay Holthus, District Judge
Gibbs Giden Locher Turner Senet & Wittbrodt LLP/Las Vegas
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
4C11 I947A