Court Opinion

ID: 9897161
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:07:54.568207+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:51.127087
License: Public Domain

Electronically Filed
                                                        Supreme Court
                                                        SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX
                                                        23-OCT-2023
                                                        12:47 PM
                                                        Dkt. 7 ODDP

                          SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX

          IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI
________________________________________________________________

                        SAMUEL COOPER, JR.,
                            Petitioner,

                                vs.

                 THE HONORABLE TRISH K. MORIKAWA,
        Judge of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit,
               State of Hawaiʻi, Respondent Judge,

                                and

                        STATE OF HAWAIʻI,
                           Respondent.
________________________________________________________________

                       ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
       (S.P.P. No. 1CPN-XX-XXXXXXX; CASE NO. 1PC990001708)

           ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
          (By: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, and Eddins, JJ.,
            Circuit Judge Kim and Circuit Judge Watanabe,
                   assigned by reason of vacancies)

     Upon consideration of the letter filed on September 29,

2023, which we construe as a petition for writ of mandamus, and

the record, the circuit court denied Petitioner’s Hawaiʻi Rules

of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 40 petition for post-conviction
relief by order filed on October 3, 2023.   Petitioner has not

demonstrated a clear and indisputable right to relief, nor a

lack of alternative means to seek relief.   See Kema v. Gaddis,

91 Hawaiʻi 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999).

     We also reject Petitioner’s assertion that the deputy

prosecuting attorney that filed a response to the HRPP Rule 40

petition should be sanctioned or otherwise disciplined.

Respondent State of Hawaiʻi is allowed to file a response that

objects to the arguments made in a HRPP Rule 40 petition.      See

HRPP Rule 40(d) (“Within 30 days after service of the petition

or within such further time as the court may allow, the

respondent may answer or otherwise plead, but the court may

require the State to answer at any time.”).

     It is ordered that the petition is denied.

          DATED:   Honolulu, Hawaii, October 23, 2023.

                                     /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

                                     /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

                                     /s/ Todd W. Eddins

                                     /s/ Robert D.S. Kim

                                     /s/ Kathleen N.A. Watanabe

                                 2