Grindling v. Attorney General, State of Hawaii ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                       Electronically Filed
    Supreme Court
    SCPW-12-0000472
    17-MAY-2012
    02:42 PM
    NO. SCPW-12-0000472
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
    CHRIS GRINDLING, Petitioner,
    vs.
    ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent.
    ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
    ORDER
    (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ.)
    Upon consideration of petitioner Chris Grindling's
    petition for a writ of mandamus, it appears that HRS § 831-3.2(a)
    does not permit expungement of petitioner's records of arrest
    for: (1) HRS § 804-7.2 and HRS § 706-626, which are not crimes;
    (2) HRS § 291C-85 and HRS § 291C-166, which are violations for
    which petitioner was found guilty; and (3) HRS § 708-826 for
    which "no disposition could be found."    It further appears that
    HRS § 831-3.2(a)(2) does not permit expungement of petitioner's
    record of arrest for HRS § 329C-2 until after August 30, 2012.
    It finally appears that petitioner provides no proof of a written
    application to the Attorney General for expungement of the record
    of arrest for HRS § 710-1077.    Therefore, petitioner is not
    entitled to mandamus relief.    See HRS § 831-3.2(a); 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.); In re
    Disciplinary Bd. of Hawaii Supreme Court, 91 Hawai#i 363, 368,
    
    984 P.2d 688
    , 693 (1999) (Mandamus relief is available to compel
    an official to perform a duty allegedly owed to an individual
    only if the individual’s claim is clear and certain, the
    official’s duty is ministerial and so plainly prescribed as to be
    free from doubt, and no other remedy is available.).
    Accordingly,
    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, May 17, 2012.
    /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
    /s/ Paula A. Nakayama
    /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.
    /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr.
    /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: SCPW-12-0000472

Filed Date: 5/17/2012

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014