Castro v. District Court of the First Circuit, Wahiawa Division ( 2010 )

LAW L|BRA``E*€€Y
NO. 30583
:N THE sUPREME coURT 0F THE sTATE or HAwAi‘:
F' ~¢
DANYELA cAsTR0, Petiti@ner, §§
€..,.
DisTRIcT c0URT or THE F:RsT c:RcU1T, wAH:AwA D1v N, “} §§
sTATE oF HAwAIT, Resp0ndent. 1 §§ §§
<::'§ ¥\.``}
621
ORlGINAL PROCEEDING
(CASE NO. lDTA-lO-Ol758)
ORDER
C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and Recktenwald, JJ.)
(By: Moon,
Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of
mandamus and/or prohibition filed by petitioner Danyela Castro
and the papers in support, it appears that petitioner, if
convicted in Case NO. lDTA-lO-0l758, can seek review of any
adverse rulings of the district court by appealing from the final
judgment and can seek a stay of any sentence pending appeal
pursuant to HRS § 641-14 (l993). Therefore, petitioner is not
entitled to extraordinary relief. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawafi
200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (l999) (A writ of mandamus and/or
prohibition 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 discretionary authority of the
lower courts, nor are they intended to serve as legal remedies in
lieu of normal appellate procedures.). Accordingly,
lT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
mandamus and/or prohibition is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawafi, July l2, 20l0.
w
i>L»uALLZ:L\fNNdLLLiggnW9-
fa-
/@-'t”“\»
&/¢.....e. »0»4@, a~-