IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

JOSHUA MASTERS, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF 

CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE ROB 

BARE, DISTRICT JUDGE, 

Respondents, 

and 

CITY OF LAS VEGAS, 

Real Party in Interest. 

JOSHUA LEE MASTERS, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

CITY OF LAS VEGAS, 

Respondent. 

No. 69582 

FILED 

MAR 17 2016 

TRADE K. LrILDEVAN 

CLERK OF 'UPREME COURT 

DEPUTY CLERK 

No. 69602 

ORDER DENYING PETITION (DOCKET NO. 69582) AND 

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL (DOCKET NO. 69602) 

Docket No. 69582 is an original petition for a writ of habeas 

corpus challenging the constitutionality of NRS 484C.110. Docket No. 

69602 is an appeal from a district court order affirming a misdemeanor 

conviction. We elect to consolidate these cases for disposition. 

Docket No. 69582 

Joshua Masters did not submit an appendix with his petition. 

See NRAP 21(a)(4), (c); see also Dir., Nev. Dep't of Prisons v. Arndt, 98 Nev. 

84, 85-86, 640 P.2d 1318, 1319 (1982) (recognizing the writ of habeas 

corpus as an extraordinary writ). Thus, he has failed to demonstrate that 

he is entitled to relief. 

Moreover, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus will not issue 

when an adequate remedy exists, save for extraordinary circumstances. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

ar, (0) I947A 
See City of Reno v. Forrest, 87 Nev. 6, 8-9, 479 P.2d 465, 466 (1971). 

Masters appears to have an adequate remedy at law, see NRS 34.020(3); 

Stilwell v. City of N. Las Vegas, 129 Nev., Adv. Op. 76, 311 P.3d 1177, 

1178-79 (2013), and he fails to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances 

warranting our intervention. 

Furthermore, Master's underlying argument is premised on 

there being two versions of NRS 484C.110 currently in effect. This is a 

meritless argument. While two NRS 484C.110 statutes are currently 

listed, each contains an effective date in the title, ensuring that the 

statutes cannot simultaneously be in effect.' See Minor Girl v. Clark Cty. 

Juvenile Court Servs., 87 Nev. 544, 548, 490 P.2d 1248, 1250 (1971). 

Accordingly, we deny the petition. 2 

Docket No. 69602 

As to the appeal in Docket No. 69602, we lack jurisdiction 

because Master's case arose in the municipal court and the district court 

has final appellate jurisdiction over a case arising in the municipal court. 

Nev. Const. art. 6, § 6; NRS 5.073(1); NRS 266.565(1); NRS 266.595; Tripp 

'The first NRS 484C.110 states that it is "[e]ffective until the date of 

the repeal of the federal law requiring each state to make it unlawful for a 

person to operate a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of 

0.08 percent or greater as a condition to receiving federal funding for the 

construction of' highways in this State," while the second NRS 484C.110 

states that is leiffective on the date of the repeal of the federal law." 

(Emphasis added). 

2We deny Master's motion to withdraw the petition. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A <1lietikf0 
J. 

v. City of Sparks, 92 Nev. 362, 363, 550 P.2d 419,419 (1976). Accordingly, 

we dismiss the appeal in Docket No. 69602. 3 

It is so ORDERED. 

/±. 

Hardest„ y___Hi 

----(S ). 

J. 

sartt‘. 

qt. J. 

Pickering 

cc: Hon. Rob Bare, District Judge 

Mueller Hinds & Associates 

Las Vegas City Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

3In his response to the order to showS cause, Masters stipulated to 

the dismissal of the appeal. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

((I) 1947A eo