from a district court order granting a petition for a writ of
mandamus and/or writ of prohibition resulting in the
dismissal of criminal complaints. Eighth Judicial District
Court, Clark County; Kathleen E. Delaney, Judge.
M. Reid, City Attorney, and Laurie A. Iscan, Assistant City
Attorney, Henderson, for Appellant.
William B. Terry, Chartered, and William B. Terry, Las Vegas,
HARDESTY, PARRAGUIRRE and STIGLICH, JJ.
174.085(5)(b) permits a municipality's prosecuting
attorney to seek the voluntary dismissal of a misdemeanor
complaint before trial and "without prejudice to the
right to file another complaint, unless the State of
Nevada has previously filed a complaint against the defendant
which was dismissed at the request of the prosecuting
attorney." (Emphasis added.) Further, "[if] a
prosecuting attorney files a subsequent complaint
after a complaint concerning the same matter has been filed
and dismissed against the defendant, " the case is
required to be assigned to the same judge as the initial
complaint. NRS 174.085(6)(a) (emphasis added).
matter of first impression, we must determine whether the
subsequent complaint filed by the prosecuting attorney may be
filed in the same case number as the original complaint. We
conclude that a plain reading of the statute permits the City
of Henderson (City) to file a subsequent complaint in the
original case. Accordingly, we conclude that the district
court acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it determined
that the City was required to file a new complaint with a new
case number when it voluntarily dismissed complaints pursuant
to NRS 174.085(5)(b), and reverse.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
respondent Giano Amado had a physical altercation with his
aunt and nephew, the City filed a criminal complaint against
Amado, charging him with misdemeanor battery constituting
domestic violence for pushing his aunt to the ground. Amado
was arrested and posted a bail bond that same day. A criminal
complaint was then filed in a separate case charging Amado
with misdemeanor battery constituting domestic violence for
grabbing, punching, or throwing his nephew to the ground.
After the aunt and nephew repeatedly failed to appear for
multiple trial dates, the City voluntarily dismissed both
complaints without prejudice pursuant to NRS 174.085(5)(b).
following the dismissal of the complaints, the City refiled
the criminal complaints as "Amended Criminal Complaint
[s]" using the same case numbers. Amado filed a motion
to dismiss the amended criminal complaints in the municipal
court, arguing that the City was required to file new
criminal complaints using new case numbers. The municipal
court denied the motion.
filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, or alternatively, a
writ of prohibition in the district court raising the same
claims regarding the amended criminal complaints. The
district court granted the petition for a writ of prohibition
and dismissed the amended complaints, finding that NRS
174.085(5)(b) required the City to file new complaints with
new case numbers.
district court acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it
determined that the municipal court had violated NRS
174.085(5)(b) and dismissed the City's complaints
arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion is one founded
on prejudice or preference rather than on reason, or contrary
to the evidence or established rules of law." State
v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Armstrong), 127 Nev.
927, 931-32, 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted). "A manifest abuse of
discretion is [a] clearly erroneous interpretation of the law
or a clearly erroneous application of a ...