No. 85313 

# FILE NOV 16 2022 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

ANTONIO SALAZAR, Petitioner, vs. THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, INAND FOR THE COUNTY OF ELKO; AND THE HONORABLE MASON E. SIMONS, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest. ORDERDENYING PETITION This original petition for a writ ofmandamus, or alternatively prohibition, challenges the district court's denial ofa pretrial petition for a writ ofhabeas corpus and motion for reduction ofbail 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 applicationofthelaw, and"[a]n arbitraryorcapriciousexerciseofdiscretion

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

. . . will not issue ifthe court sought tobe 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 onprejudice or preferencerather than on reason, or contrary

to the evidence or established rules of law." State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Armstrong), 127Nev. 927, 931-32, 267P.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 ofa traditional writ ofmandamus are not met, this court may consider advisory mandamus relief "[w]here the circumstances establish urgency or strong necessity, or an important issue oflaw requires clarification andpublicpolicyisserved bythiscourt'sexerciseofitsoriginal 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 mandamuspetition. 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 reliefis not warranted in this case. Petitioner's challenge to whether sufficientidentification evidence waspresented at thepreliminary hearingis the type ofchallenge 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 2presented 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, 748P.2d 3, 6(1987). And evenwerewetoexaminethejustice 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 ofthis matter under a general order ofassignment.

3 SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
(0) I 947A