IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
PAUL ROBERTS, No. 69348
Petitioner,
vs.
THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF
FILED
CLARK; AND CHARLES THOMPSON, JAN 1 4 2016
SENIOR JUDGE,
Respondents,
and
THE STATE OF NEVADA,
Real Party in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION
In this original petition for a writ of mandamus, petitioner
Paul Roberts challenges an order of the district court allowing the State to
amend the information pursuant to NRS 173.035(2). Roberts argues that
the district court acted arbitrarily and capriciously by granting leave to
amend the information without a proper affidavit after a motion to add the
charges was denied by the justice court at the preliminary hearing.
We conclude that Roberts has not demonstrated that the
district court manifestly abused or arbitrarily or capriciously exercised its
discretion and decline to exercise our discretion to consider his petition.
See Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849,
851 (1991) (holding that it is within this court's discretion whether to
consider a writ petition); see also State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court
(Armstrong), 127 Nev. 927, 931-32, 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) (defining
manifest abuse and arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion); Pan v.
Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004)
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A e
aU
(concluding that petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that
extraordinary relief is warranted).
Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.'
Saitta
a.
Pickering
cc: Eighth Judicial District Court Dept. 20
Hon. Charles Thompson, Senior Judge
Mueller Hinds & Associates
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
"We direct the clerk of this court to correct the caption on the docket
sheet to conform to the caption on this order.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A e