K.P.D. v. Dist. Ct. (State)

course of law. NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330. And, because mandamus and prohibition are extraordinary remedies, the decision to entertain a petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition lies within our discretion. Hickey v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 105 Nev. 729, 731, 782 P.2d 1336, 1338 (1989). Petitioner represents that the juvenile court has not entered a written order in this matter. Because the juvenile court's oral order is "ineffective for any purpose," Rust v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 689, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987), the court remains free to reconsider the issue, see id. at 688, 747 P.2d at 1382; see also Bradley v. State, 109 Nev. 1090, 1094-95, 864 P.2d 1272, 1275 (1993) (recognizing that a judge's oral pronouncement of judgment and sentence remains subject to modification until it is signed by the judge and entered by the clerk). For this reason, we are not convinced that our intervention by way of extraordinary writ is warranted at this time, and we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Pickering

Saitta

cc: Hon. William 0. Voy, District Judge, Family Court Division Clark County Public Defender Attorney GenerallCarson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A OD