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