Opinion
No. 76106
09-14-2018
JOSE CESAR CAMACHO, Petitioner, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE DOUGLAS SMITH, DISTRICT JUDGE, 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 decision to deny a pretrial petition for a writ of habeas corpus and motion to dismiss. We decline to exercise original jurisdiction in this matter because the arguments primarily challenge the probable cause determination, and petitioner did not demonstrate that the State violated lawful procedures or failed to present exculpatory evidence at the grand jury proceedings. See NRS 34.160; NRS 34.170; see also State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 127 Nev. 927, 931, 267 P.3d 777, 779-80 (2011) ("[T]he decision to entertain an extraordinary writ petition lies within our discretion."); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004) ("[T]he right to appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy that precludes writ relief."); Kussman v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 96 Nev. 544, 545-46, 612 P.2d 679, 680 (1980) (disfavoring review of a pretrial probable cause determination through an original writ proceeding); NRS 172.145 (providing that the district attorney must provide the grand jury with any evidence of which the district attorney is aware that will explain away the charges and permitting the defendant to submit a statement regarding the results of a preliminary hearing). Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
/s/_________, J.
Cherry
/s/_________, J.
Parraguirre
/s/_________, J.
Stiglich cc: Hon. Douglas Smith, District Judge
Wooldridge Law
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk