After considering the parties' briefs, the district court concluded that 

McNeely applied to Tanner's case, and, relying on Hardison v. State, 84 

Nev. 125, 437 P.2d 868 (1968), the district court concluded that it could 

consider the issue on appeal because it involved a constitutionally 

protected Fourth Amendment right. Further, because the trial court 

record did not reveal sufficient facts to "show 1) whether consent was 

obtained for the blood test and/or 2) whether an exception existed to 

justify performing the blood test without first obtaining a warrant," the 

district court remanded the case to the justice court for an evidentiary 

hearing to determine whether the blood test results should be suppressed. 

This original petition for a writ of certiorari or prohibition followed. 

Because the district court had jurisdiction to consider Tanner's 

appeal, we conclude that a writ of certiorari or prohibition is not the 

proper vehicle in which to challenge the district court's decision. See NRS 

34.020(2) ("The writ [of certiorari] shall be granted in all cases when an 

inferior tribunal . . . has exceeded the jurisdiction of such tribunal . . . and 

there is no appeal, nor, in the judgment of the court, any plain, speedy and 

adequate remedy."); NRS 34.320 (providing that a writ of prohibition 

"arrests the proceedings of any tribunal . . . when such proceedings are 

without or in excess of the jurisdiction of such tribunal"). Rather, the 

State's contention more appropriately falls within the scope of mandamus, 

and we elect to construe the State's pleading as a petition for a writ of 

mandamus, which is available to compel the performance of an act that 

the law requires or to control a manifest abuse of discretion. See NRS 

34.160; Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 603- 

04, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A e 
Having considered the petition and the answer, we conclude 

that relief is warranted. NRS 189.050 provides that a duly perfected 

appeal from a criminal conviction in justice court "transfers the action to 

the district court to be judged on the record." The plain language of that 

statute limits the district court's review of an appeal from a justice court 

conviction to only matters contained in the trial record. State v. Catania, 

120 Nev. 1030, 1033, 102 P.3d 588, 590 (2004) ("We must attribute the 

plain meaning to a statute that is not ambiguous."). And while Hardison 

observes that constitutional issues may be considered on appeal even 

though they were not raised in the trial court, nothing in that decision 

suggests that the trial record may be expanded on appellate review. See 

generally Baltazar-Monterrosa v. State, 122 Nev. 606, 614, 137 P.3d 1137, 

1142 (2006) (observing that the failure to object to• the admission of 

evidence generally precludes appellate review of the issue absent plain 

error affecting a defendant's substantial rights). 

Tanner argues that the district court's remand for an 

evidentiary hearing is supported by this court's decision in Ryan's Express 

Transp. Servs. Inc. v. Amador Stage Lines, Inc., 128 Nev. , 279 P.3d 

166 (2012). We disagree. That case concerned a motion filed in this court 

by Ryan's Express to disqualify a law firm from representing a party to an 

appeal before this court. Because the motion pleadings were insufficient 

to determine a discrete issue raised in the pleadings, this court remanded 

the matter to the district court for an evidentiary hearing on that discrete 

issue, recognizing that laln appellate court is not particularly well-suited 

to make factual determinations in the first instance." 128 Nev. at , 279 

at 172-73. The posture of Tanner's case is significantly different from 

Ryan's Express. Unlike Ryan's Express, Tanner's case concerns appellate 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 1947A 
review of an unpreserved allegation of trial error where the district court's 

review is statutorily limited to the trial record. 

Because the district court's consideration of Tanner's 

suppression issue was limited to a review of the trial record, we conclude 

that it manifestly abused its discretion by remanding the case to the 

justice court for an evidentiary hearing on the matter. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petition GRANTED AND DIRECT THE CLERK 

OF THIS COURT TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS instructing the 

district court to vacate its order remanding Tanner's case for an 

evidentiary hearing to determine whether his blood test results should be 

suppressed. 

Hardesty 

Cherry 

aksuty , J. 

cc: Hon. Michael P. Gibbons, District Judge 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Douglas County District Attorney/Minden 

Larry K. Dunn & Associates 

Douglas County Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 4 

(0) 1947A e