Rodriguez (Michael) v. Dist. Ct. (State)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

MICHAEL RODRIGUEZ, No. 77054 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; FEILL'D AND THE HONORABLE DOUGLAS W. HERNDON, DISTRICT JUDGE, NOV 15 Respondents, and THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION This petition for a writ of mandamus challenges the district court's order denying a motion to introduce evidence of the codefendants' convictions, sentences, and criminal histories. Because petitioner can challenge the district court's decision on appeal from the judgment of conviction, NRS 177.015(3); NRS 177.045, petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law and, therefore, this court's intervention by way of an extraordinary writ is not warranted, NRS 34.170. Petitioner has not pointed to any circumstances that reveal urgency or strong necessity for this court to intervene even though there is an alternative remedy available. Cf. Salaiscooper v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 117 Nev. 892, 901-02, 34 P.3d 509, 515-16 (2001) (concluding that review through writ petition was warranted even though there was an alternative remedy where there were

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A e j

56 similar cases with the same issues pending in lower courts and petition presented issue of great statewide importance). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

C14 Cherry -12-1A-1/7 , J.

Parraguirre

J. Stiglich

cc: Hon. Douglas W. Herndon, District Judge Law Office of Betsy Allen Law Office of Christopher R. Oram Attorney GenerallCarson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2

EWEN