Title: Tierney v. District Court of the Fifth Circuit, State of Hawaii

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

No, 29355

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWATS

MICHAEL C, TIERNEY, Petitioner,

 

iad

 

3

2 Wd) 9 190 0002

 

us

DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI'r,
Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(CR. NOS. 5P108-886, 0504068K, A0SO4068K, and B0504068x)

ORDER
(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.)

Upon consideration of petitioner Michael C. Tierney’s
petition for a writ of mandamus and the papers in support, it
appears that petitioner posted cash bail of $750.00 in district
court Cr. Nos. SP108-886, 0504068K, ADSO4068K, and BOSO406EK.
‘The district court forfeited the bail on June 4, 2008 and
notified petitioner that

Pursuant to HRS § 804-51 (Supp. 2007], the Court

shall execute upon the judgnent of forfeiture

unless, within thirty (30) days of the date that

this notice is received, a Motion or Application

is filed with the Court’ showing good cause why

execution should not issue upon the judgment.

Upon timely filing of such motion or application,

a hearing will be held thereon and the Court will

determine if the judgment of forfeiture should be

vacated.
‘The district court’s notice of forfeiture was received by
petitioner on June 19, 2008. Twenty-seven days later, on
July 16, 2008, petitioner filed a “action to return bail bond,”
which the district court calendared for hearing on August 1,
2008. On July 29, 2008, the district court, without a hearing

and in petitioner's absence, ordered the final forfeiture of

oad
petitioner's bail. On August 14, 2008, the district court, in
petitioner's absence, dismissed petitioner's cases in Cr. Nos.
SP108-886, 0504068K, AOSO40EBK, and B0S04069K and determined that

the dismissal mooted petitioner's July 16, 2008 “motion to return

 

bail bond.”

A writ of mandamus will issue where a petitioner
denonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack
of alternative means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or
obtain the requested action. Kena v, 1 91 Hawai'i 200,
204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999). Mandamus relief is available when
4 court has refused to act on a subject properly before the court
under circumstances in which it has a legal duty to act. id. 92
Hawas's 204-205, 982 P.2d at 338-339.

Petitioner's July 16, 2008 “motion to return bail bond”
=> filed within thirty days after petitioner received the
district court's notice of forfeiture -- appears to have been a
timely motion under HRS § 604-51 to set aside the bail forfeiture
in Cr. Nos, 5P108-886, OS04068K, AOSOAO6K, and BOSO4O6K, The
motion was properly before the district court, in which case HRS
§ 804-51 required the district court to hold a hearing on the
motion, to sustain or overrule the motion, and to vacate or
execute the forfeiture. See HRS § 804-51. Cr. Nos. SP108-896,
O504069K, AOSOAOEBK, and BOSO4OGEK have been dismissed and
petitioner has no alternative to the instant petition.
Accordingly,

TT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of

mandamus is granted as follows:
‘The district court of the fifth circuit shall

forthwith: (1) hold a hearing in Cr. Nos. 5P108-886, 0504068K,

 

A0S04068K, and BOSOAO6SK on defendant Michael C. Tierney’s

ba:

   

jon to ret!

 

bond” filed on July 16, 2008; and (2)

 

either sustain the motion and vacate the July 29, 2008 final

 

forfeiture of bail or overrule the motion and affirm the July 29,
2008 final forfeiture of bail
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, October 6, 2008.
Nene OS ave jares

Yormn € Belaga ty