Title: Hutch v. State

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

No, 27829
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAT'T

 

EUGENE JAMES HUTCH, Petitioner-Appellant

 

z

STATE OF HAWAI'I, Respondent-Appellee
APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT
(S.P.P. NO. 95-0-0169)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

(By: Nakayama, J., for the court!)

 

Upon review of the record, it appears we lack appellate
jurisdiction over Petitioner-Appellant Eugene J. Hutch’s
(Appellant Hutch) appeal from the March 9, 2006torder denying
Appellant Hutch’s motion for a copy of the complete file and/or
to know the costs thereof in $.P.P. No. 95-0-0169 (SSM).
Appellant Hutch’s motion was not an independent petition for
post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 40 of the Hawai'i Rules
of Penal Procedure (HRPP), but, instead, it was an irregular
request for copies of litigation documents. The March 9, 2006
order is not an appealable final judgment from a HRPP Rule 40
Proceeding pursuant to HRS § 641-11 (1993) and HRPP Rule 40(h).
‘The March 9, 2006 order is not an appealable final judgment
pursuant to HRS § 641-1(a) (1993) and Rule 58 of the Hawai'i
Rules of Civil Procedure. The March 9, 2006 order is not
certified for interlocutory appeal pursuant to HRS § 641-1(b)
(1993) or HRS § 641-17 (1993). The collateral order doctrine and
the Foraay doctrine do not apply to this case. See State v.
Kealaiki, 95 Hawai'i 309, 316-17, 22 P.3d $88, $95-96 (2001);
Ciesla v. Reddish, 76 Hawai'i 18, 20, 889 P.2d 702, 704 (1995).

Absent an appealable final judgment or order, we lack appellate

Acoba, and Duffy, 93.

 

Sconsidered by: Moon, C.J.» Levinson, No}
jurisdiction. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this appeal is dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, June 19, 2006.
FOR THE COURT:

Passer OM ay On

Associate Justice