Title: Tierney v. Hionaka
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SCPW-12-0001014
State: Hawaii
Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court
Date: December 24, 2012

SCPW-12-0001014 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I MICHAEL C. TIERNEY, Petitioner, vs. RANDALL HIRONAKA, Court-Appointed Attorney, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ORDER (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.) Upon consideration of Petitioner Michael C. Tierney’s petition for a writ of mandamus, which was filed on November 16, 2012, and the record, it appears that petitioner is not entitled to mandamus relief inasmuch as (1) court-appointed counsel, Randall Hironaka, filed a motion to withdraw as counsel in Cr. No. 08-1-0869 on December 10, 2012, and (2) petitioner can seek the appointment of new counsel, as appropriate, in the circuit court. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200, 204-05, 982 P.2d 334, 338-39 (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; such writs are not intended to supersede the legal Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-12-0001014 24-DEC-2012 08:05 AM discretionary authority of the lower courts, nor are they intended to serve as legal remedies in lieu of normal appellate procedures). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is (1) denied as moot as to petitioner’s request for court-appointed counsel to file a motion to withdraw as counsel, and (2) denied as to petitioner’s request for the appointment of new counsel. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, December 24, 2012. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack