Case Title: Tierney v. Chan

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2010-12-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
NO. SCPW-10-0000207 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I MICHAEL C. TIERNEY, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE DERRICK H.M. CHAN, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CR. NOS. 88-2209 and 89-0024) ORDER (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ. and Circuit Judge Trader, assigned by reason of vacancy) Upon consideration of petitioner Michael C. Tierney's petition for a writ of mandamus, it appears that forfeiture of bail is not a proceeding for which petitioner is entitled to appointment of counsel. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to mandamus relief. See HRS § 802-1 (1993); State v. Camara, 81 Hawai#i 324, 329 n.7, 916 P.2d 1225, 1330 n.7 (1996); Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action.). Accordingly, Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-10-0000207 22-DEC-2010 01:17 PM IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate court shall process the petition for a writ of mandamus without payment of the filing fee. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, December 22, 2010. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. /s/ Rom A. Trader 2