ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying petitioner Karlo Pizarros motion to be assigned to the Gambling Treatment Diversion Court pursuant to NRS 458A.230. Having considered the petition, we conclude that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is not warranted. See NRS 34.160; Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). In particular, Pizarro has an adequate remedy at law—an appeal from the judgment of conviction. See Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841 (“[T]he right to appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy that precludes writ relief.”); NRS 34.170; see also NRS 177.015(3) (providing for an appeal from a final judgment in criminal cases). Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
Herndon, J.
Lee, J.
Bell, J.