Tierney v. Matsuoka ( 2012 )

Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCPW-12-0001015
24-DEC-2012
08:22 AM
SCPW-12-0001015
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
MICHAEL C. TIERNEY, Petitioner,
vs.
BERT Y. MATSUOKA; MICHAEL A. TOWN; JOYCE MATSUMORI-HOSHIJO,
of the Hawai#i Paroling Authority, Respondents.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.,
and Acoba, J., dissenting)
Upon consideration of Michael C. Tierney’s petition for
a writ of mandamus, which was filed on November 16, 2012, and the
record, it appears that petitioner fails to demonstrate a clear
and indisputable right to an expedited parole hearing or to be
released from custody upon the expiration of his minimum term
sentence. Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to mandamus
relief. See 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). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
mandamus is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, December 24, 2012.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
DISSENT BY ACOBA, J.
I believe HRS § 353H-7(a) is meaningless unless it is
construed as mandatory ("the director of public safety shall . .
. "). Because HRS § 353H-7(a)(1) requires the director to return
the inmate to Hawai#i at least one year prior to the release date
and Petitioner’s maximum term will expire in less than six months
(May 26, 2013), I would order the director of public safety to
answer the petition.
/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.
2