Court Opinion

ID: 9793183
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:44:09.172908+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:03:37.612590
License: Public Domain

Batjer, J.,
concurring:
I agree that the judgments of conviction against the appellant should be affirmed, but for a significantly different reason than that reached by Justice Manoukian and concurred in by Justice Thompson.
When the district judge rejected appellant’s proffered guilty plea and set the matter for trial, jurisdiction was in the district court. At that time the judge had the discretion to remand the cause for a preliminary examination. NRS 171.208.1 Why it was not remanded is unclear in the record. When the trial judge did not suci sponte remand the cause to the justice court for a preliminary examination, he did not abuse his discretion.
A preliminary examination is not meant to be a substitute for a trial. “There is no constitutional right to a preliminary hearing. It is a creature of statute, and as such, the proceedings are governed by statutory provisions ... Its purpose is to determine the basis for prosecution and the issue involved in the proceedings is not the question of guilt or innocence, but whether there is sufficient evidence for probable cause to hold the accused over to answer and stand trial.” Azbill v. Fisher, 84 Nev. 414, 418, 442 P.2d 916, 918 (1968).
At the conclusion of a consolidated jury trial, appellant was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of two charges of possession of stolen property. It would be incongruous to now remand the matter to justice court to determine whether there was probable cause to hold appellant to answer and stand trial.
On the other hand, I find it equally incongruous to hold that appellant waived any right he might have had to a preliminary examination because he did not pursue mandamus. If he had pursued that remedy, it would have been denied because a writ of mandate will not issue to compel the performance of a discretionary act. See, e.g., Roventini v. District Court, 81 Nev. 603, 407 P.2d 725 (1965).
I concur in the result.

 NRS 171.208.
“Whenever a preliminary examination has not been had, the district court may for good cause shown at any time before a plea has been entered or an indictment found remand the defendant for preliminary examination to the appropriate justice of the peace or other magistrate, and such justice or other magistrate shall then proceed with the preliminary examination as provided in this chapter.”