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


Menu:
  • IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
    STEVEN SAMUEL BRAUNSTEIN, No. 83949
    Petitioner,
    vs.
    THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 0
    COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, fe i i ff D
    IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF s
    CLARK, «JAN 20 2022
    Respondent, ite
    and eee
    THE STATE OF NEVADA, DEPUTY
    Real Party in Interest.
    ORDER DENYING PETITION
    This original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus challenges
    petitioner’s conviction for possession of stolen property on the ground that
    due to a clerical error, he was convicted of a category D felony although the
    value of the stolen property supported only a misdemeanor conviction.
    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
    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,
    Supreme Court
    OF
    NEVADA
    (0) ITA EE anna
    
    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”);
    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 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). Accordingly, we
    ORDER the petition DENIED.
    - Pee 3 eee re wehbe — eo re
    Parraguirre
    Je sOecl, va. A2, Cou? JJ.
    Hardesty Stiglich
    cc: Steven Samuel Braunstein
    Attorney General/Carson City
    Clark County District Attorney
    Eighth District Court Clerk
    Supreme Covar
    OF
    NEVADA
    (0) 197A                             

Document Info

Docket Number: 83949

Filed Date: 1/20/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/21/2022