Roberts v. State, 110519 NVCA, 77984-COA

Docket Nº:77984-COA
Opinion Judge:GIBBONS, C J
Party Name:JOSHUA LEE ROBERTS, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA; AND LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondents.
Judge Panel:Tao, J. Bulla, J. Hon. Jerry A. Wiese, District Judge
Case Date:November 05, 2019
Court:Court of Appeals of Nevada
 
FREE EXCERPT

JOSHUA LEE ROBERTS, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF NEVADA; AND LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, Respondents.

No. 77984-COA

Court of Appeals of Nevada

November 5, 2019

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

GIBBONS, C J

Joshua Lee Roberts appeals from an order of the district court denying a petition for a writ of mandamus. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Jerry A. Wiese, Judge.

First, Roberts argues the district court erred by denying his September 24, 2018, petition. In his petition, Roberts sought an order directing the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department to return seized property.

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.

Based upon our review of the record on appeal, Roberts failed to demonstrate the district court abused its discretion by denying the petition. The district court denied Roberts' petition because the property was related to Roberts' criminal activity and Roberts did not demonstrate he was the actual owner of the property. The district court further informed Roberts that he could file a motion pursuant to NRS 179.085 and attempt to establish he was entitled to the return of the seized property. Because Roberts did not establish he was entitled to have the property returned to him and he had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy pursuant to NRS 179.085 to seek the return of any improperly seized property, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the petition.

Second, Roberts argues the district court erred by denying the petition without providing him sufficient time to...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP