Nevada Supreme Court
Ervin, Sr. (Elton) Vs. the Second Jud. Dist. Ct.
Decided March 18, 2020
No negative treatmentNo negative treatment found: no reversal on appeal and no treated citing cases.
Summary
The Nevada Supreme Court denied a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus that sought to compel the district court to act on a sentence‑modification motion filed on July 9, 2019. The Court held the petitioner failed to provide the required appendix of essential documents under Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure 21(a)(4), and therefore declined to exercise its original jurisdiction.
Holdings
- Whether the petition for a writ of mandamus should be granted despite the petitioner’s failure to submit required exhibits. The petition is denied because the petitioner failed to submit an appendix containing all documents essential to understand the matters set forth, as required by NRAP 21(a)(4); consequently the Court declines to exercise original jurisdiction.
Written by LawDiver's case analysis.
How later courts treated this case
Treatment rows appear when later opinions record how they used this case.
See all citing casesFilter by court, year and treatment in LawDiver. Free, no login.
In this case
Opinion of the Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
ELTON WHITNEY ERVIN, SR., No. 80757
Petitioner,
ri;
vs.
THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT FL :73
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF
WASHOE,
Res ondent.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
In this original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus,
petitioner appears to seek an order directing the district court to act on
a motion for sentence modification allegedly filed on July 9, 2019.
Problematically, petitioner has not provided this court with
exhibits or other documentation that would support his claims for relief.
See NRAP 21(a)(4) (providing the petitioner shall submit an appendix
containing all documents "essential to understand the matters set forth
in the petition"). Therefore, without deciding the merits of the claims
raised, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction in this matter. See
NRAP 21(b).
We reiterate that Ipletitioned cardies] the burden of
demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted." Pan v. Eighth
SUPREM COURT
Of
NEVADA
(0) 1947A 44Erts
7,0 - 101,60
I ;
Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228,88 P.3d 840, 844
(2004).
Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.'
A.J.C.
, J. J.
Hardesty Cadish
cc: Elton Whitney Ervin, Sr.
Attorney General/Carson City
Washoe County District Attorney
Washoe District Court Clerk
Mie are confident that the district court will resolve all pending
matters as expeditiously as its calendar permits.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A Algto 2
I.
Research the next case the same way
Everything on this page, for any of 10 million opinions.
Search every way lawyers do
Citation, case name, boolean with /s and /p, or a plain-English question. Free, no login.
See what still holds
Every case shows how later courts treated it: followed, distinguished, limited or overruled.
Check a brief before you file
CiteCheck reads your brief and flags cites that don't exist, don't match, or aren't good law.
Use it where you work
The LawDiver connector brings real caselaw into Claude, ChatGPT and Cursor. An API for builders.
Try CiteCheck free or create a free account for AI research and saved folders
Related landmark cases
- Women's Health Clinic v. State2001 La. LEXIS 2992 (2001)
- Winterfield v. Stauss24 Wis. 394 (1869)
- Gale v. Trust Company of Norfolk142 Va. 170 (1925)
- Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission, Appellant v. Holiday Tours, Inc.559 F.2d 841 (1977)
- Sampson v. Murray415 U.S. 61 (1974)