process rights, the district court reversed Roose's conviction and barred
retrial by the State.
The district court has final appellate jurisdiction over a case
arising in the justice court, see Nev. Const. art. 6, § 6; Waugh v. Casazza,
85 Nev. 520, 521, 458 P.2d 359, 360 (1969); therefore the State cannot
appeal the district court's order. We elect to exercise our discretion and
consider the petition. See NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330; Smith v. Eighth
Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) ("[T]he
issuance of a writ of mandamus or prohibition is purely discretionary with
this court.").
First, the State challenges the district court's jurisdiction to
consider Roose's appeal and asks this court to direct the district court to
dismiss Roose's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. As a defendant who
pleaded nob o contendere may appeal based on a constitutional challenge,
the State has failed to demonstrate that the district court lacked
jurisdiction to consider Roose's appeal. See NRS 177.015(4) (a defendant
may appeal a judgment entered pursuant to a nob o contendere plea if "the
appeal is based upon reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional or other
grounds that challenge the legality of the proceedings"); Franklin v. State,
110 Nev. 750, 752, 877 P.2d 1058, 1059 (1994) (claims appropriate on
appeal from a judgment entered pursuant to a guilty plea include "a
challenge to the sentence imposed on constitutional or other grounds," or a
claim "that there were other conditions that rendered• the proceedings
unfair"), overruled on other grounds by Thomas v. State, 115 Nev. 148, 979
P.2d 222 (1999). To the extent the State argues that Roose's claim on
appeal was one of bias and that such a claim had to be raised prior to the
entry of his plea, "a claim that the [ ] court entertained an actual bias or
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A aser
that there were other conditions that rendered the proceedings unfair" is
appropriately raised on appeal from a judgment entered pursuant to a
guilty plea. 2 See Franklin, 110 Nev.. at 752, 877 P.2d at 1059. 3
Second, the State challenges the district court's decision to bar
retrial of Roose and asks this court to direct the district court to vacate its
order filed on March 24, 2015. 4 The State argues that the district court
arbitrarily and capriciously exercised its discretion by barring retrial of
Roose when it concluded that a new trial was not necessary and proper
pursuant to NRS 177.265 (providing that "Mlle appellate court of
competent jurisdiction . . . may reverse, affirm, or modify the judgment
appealed form, and may, if necessary or proper, order a new trial"). We
agree. See United States v. Tateo, 377 U.S. 463, 466 (1964) ("It would be a
high price indeed for society to pay were every accused granted immunity
from punishment because of any defect sufficient to constitute reversible
error in the proceedings leading to conviction."); Round Hill Gen.
Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 603-04, 637 P.2d 534, 536
(1981) (mandamus available to control a manifest abuse or arbitrary or
capricious exercise of discretion); see also State v. Eighth Judicial Dist.
Court (Armstrong), 127 Nev., Adv. Op. 84, 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) ("An
nob o contendere plea is equivalent to a guilty plea."
2 "A State v.
Lewis, 124 Nev. 132, 133 n.1, 178 P.3d 146, 147 n.1 (2008).
3 Aswe have concluded that the district court had jurisdiction to
consider Roose's appeal based on a constitutional challenge to the justice
court's sentencing policy, we do not consider the State's remaining
arguments regarding the district court's jurisdiction.
4 TheState does not contest the district court's determination that
Roose's constitutional rights were violated.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) I947A
arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion is one founded on prejudice or
preference rather than on reason, or contrary to the evidence or
established rules of law." (quotation marks and citation omitted)).
Therefore, we grant the petition in part.
For the reasons stated above, we
ORDER the petition DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN
PART AND DIRECT THE CLERK OF THIS COURT TO ISSUE A WRIT
OF MANDAMUS instructing the district court to strike the portion of its
March 24, 2015, order that precludes a new trial and to remand the
matter to the justice court, before a different justice of the peace, to allow
Roose to withdraw his plea of nob contendere.
aA_A o J.
Parraguirre
J.
J.
Cherry
cc: Hon. Rob Bare, District Judge
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Mueller Hinds & Associates
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A (reo