Bayot v. State, 111219 NVCA, 77939-COA
|Opinion Judge:||Gibbons, C.J.|
|Party Name:||ALEXANDER BERNARD BAYOT, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.|
|Judge Panel:||Bulla, J. Hon. Eric Johnson, District Judge.|
|Case Date:||November 12, 2019|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Nevada|
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
Alexander Bernard Bayot appeals from an order of the district court denying a petition for a writ of mandamus and a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Eric Johnson, Judge.
Petition for a Writ of Mandamus
Bayot argues the district court erred by denying his April 27, 2018, petition. In his petition, Bayot contended the bill that created the statute revision commission in 1951 was unconstitutional as it violated the separation of powers doctrine, and he requested the district court to issue a writ directing the governor to investigate whether the Nevada Revised Statutes are unconstitutional.
We review the district court's denial of a petition for a writ of mandamus for an abuse of discretion. Douglas v. State, 124 Nev. 379, 383, 184 P.3d 1037, 1039 (2008). A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act which the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, NRS 34.160, or to control a manifest abuse or arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion, Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 603-04, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981). A writ of mandamus will not issue, however, if the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. NRS 34.170.
Bayot was not entitled to relief because he did not demonstrate that the statute revision commission improperly encroached upon the powers of another branch of government. See Comm'n on Ethics v. Hardy, 125 Nev. 285, 291-92, 212 P.3d 1098, 1103 (2009) ("The purpose of the separation of powers doctrine is to prevent one branch of government from encroaching on the powers of another branch."). Bayot also failed to demonstrate members of the Nevada Supreme Court violated Nev. Const. Art. 6, § 11, by serving in a non-judicial public office, because he failed to demonstrate that participation in a commission regarding revising Nevada's statutes...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP