No. 85313 

FILE 

NOV 1 6 2022 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

ANTONIO SALAZAR, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ELKO; 

AND THE HONORABLE MASON E. 

SIMONS, DISTRICT JUDGE, 

Respondents, 

and 

THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

Real Party in Interest. 

ORDER DENYING PETITION 

This original petition for a writ of mandamus, or alternatively 

prohibition, challenges the district court's denial of a pretrial petition for a 

writ of habeas corpus and motion for reduction of bail or own recognizance 

release. 

Traditionally, a writ of mandamus is available to compel the 

performance of an act which the law requires as a duty resulting from an 

office or to control a manifest abuse or arbitrary or capricious exercise of 

discretion.1 NRS 34.160; Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 

97 Nev. 601, 603-04, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981). A manifest abuse of 

discretion occurs when there is a clearly erroneous interpretation or 

application of the law, and "[a]n arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion 

1Petitioner alternatively seeks a writ of prohibition. However, "[a] 

writ of prohibition . . . will not issue if the court sought to be restrained had 

jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter under consideration." 

Goicoechea v. Fourth Judicial Dist. Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289, 607 P.2d 1140, 

1141 (1980). 

22-

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) I947A 4464. 
is one founded on prejudice or preference rather than on reason, or contrary 

to the evidence or established rules of law." State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. 

Court (Armstrong), 127 Nev. 927, 931-32, 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) (internal 

quotation marks and citations omitted). "[T]raditional mandamus relief 

does not lie where a discretionary lower court decision results from a mere 

error in judgment." Walker v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 136 Nev. 678, 

680, 476 P.3d 1194, 1197 (2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). Even 

when the requirements of a traditional writ of mandamus are not met, this 

court may consider advisory mandamus relief "[w]here the circumstances 

establish urgency or strong necessity, or an important issue of law requires 

clarification and public policy is served by this court's exercise of its original 

jurisdiction." Schuster v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 187, 190, 

160 P.3d 873, 875 (2007). It is solely within this court's discretion whether 

to entertain a mandamus petition. Gathrite v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 

135 Nev. 405, 407, 451 P.3d 891, 893 (2019). 

Having considered the pleadings and record, we conclude that 

extraordinary relief is not warranted in this case. Petitioner's challenge to 

whether sufficient identification evidence was presented at the preliminary 

hearing is the type of challenge disfavored by this court because it does not 

present a purely legal issue. See Kussman v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 

96 Nev. 544, 545-46, 612 P.2d 679, 680 (1980) (explaining that review of 

pretrial probable cause determination through an original writ petition is 

disfavored); Ostman v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 563, 565, 816 

P.2d 458, 459-60 (1991) (entertaining a pretrial challenge where the 

petition presented a purely legal issue). Petitioner further has not 

demonstrated a manifest abuse or arbitrary or capricious exercise of 

discretion in the denial of his motion to reduce bail. Petitioner has not 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) I947A 

2 
presented a cogent argument explaining how the district colirt abused its 

discretion in denying his motion to reduce bail. See Maresca v. State, 103 

Nev. 669, 673, 748 P.2d 3, 6 (1987). And even were we to examine the justice 

court's decision, we discern no manifest abuse or arbitrary or capricious 

exercise of discretion in its decision setting bail in this case. See ValdezJimenez v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 136 Nev. 155, 163-67, 460 P.3d 976, 

985-88 (2020). Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petition DENIED.2

j

Oarraguirre - 

"ekty'444.0 

, Sr.J. 

Stiglich 

cc: Hon. Mason E. Simons, District Judge 

Evenson Law Office 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Elko County District Attorney 

Elko County Clerk 

2The Honorable Mark Gibbons, Senior Justice, participated in the 

decision of this matter under a general order of assignment. 

3 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) I 947A