Cota (Michael) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State) ( 2021 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
MICHAEL LUIS COTA, No. 83521
Petitioner,
VS.
THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, FILE
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF
DOUGLAS, OCT 1 if 2021
Respondent, i ). BROWN
PREME COURT
and BY
THE STATE OF NEVADA, CLE.RK
Real Party in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION
This is an original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus in
which petitioner appears to complain that he was deprived of his right to
appeal his conviction because that appeal was "entitled in the wrong
county."
Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our
extraordinary intervention is warranted because an appeal from the
judgment of conviction constitutes a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy
precluding writ relief. See NRS 34.170; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court,
120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004) (explaining that a writ of
mandamus is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate
remedy at law, that an appeal is generally an adequate remedy precluding
writ relief, and that petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that writ
relief is warranted). The Nevada court of appeals order affirming
petitioner's judgment of conviction correctly listed the Ninth Judicial
District Court and the Honorable Thomas W. Gregory in the jurisdictional
SUPREME COURT statement. Cota v. State, Docket Nos. 77414-COA and 77415-COA (Order
OF
NEVADA
(Of 1947A ce4o
? - Zci S"?-49
of Affirmance, Ct. App., March 19, 2020). Therefore, petitioner was not
deprived of his right to appeal, nor was that appeal "entitled in the wrong
county." Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.1
Hardesty
Parraguirre
Stiglich
cc: Michael Luis Cota
Attorney General/Carson City
Douglas County District Attorney/Minden
Douglas County Clerk
'Given this disposition, any further requests by petitioner are denied
SUPREME COURT as moot.
OF
NEVADA
2