ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION
This emergency original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges the district courts jurisdiction to proceed with a criminal trial in the underlying case. Petitioner has also filed an emergency motion for stay of the district court proceedings pending our consideration of this writ petition.
A writ of mandamus may be entered to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion, Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 603-04, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981); see also NRS 34.160, and a writ of prohibition is available to curb jurisdictional excesses, NRS 34.330. Neither writ will issue, however, when the petitioner has an adequate legal remedy. NRS 34.170; NRS 34.340; Clay v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 129 Nev. 445, 449, 305 P.3d 898, 901 (2013).
Here, petitioners trial is scheduled for next week, and petitioner may raise his jurisdictional concerns on appeal from any judgment of conviction. Accordingly, having considered the petition and supporting documents, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction. See Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004) (“[T]he right to appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy that precludes writ relief.”); see also Smith v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (recognizing that the issuance of a writ is discretionary). Thus, petitioners emergency motion for stay is denied as moot, and we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
Herndon, J.
Lee, J.
Bell, J.