Tierney v. State ( 2013 )

Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCPW-13-0000095
21-FEB-2013
09:37 AM
SCPW-13-000095
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
MICHAEL C. TIERNEY, Petitioner,
vs.
STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(S.P.P. No. 12-1-0011)
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.)
Petitioner Michael C. Tierney submitted a document to
the court entitled “Motion for Appoin[t]ment of Counsel Demand by
U.S. Supreme Court” in which he contends that all states must
appoint counsel in post-conviction proceedings pursuant to the
United States Supreme Court’s decision in Martinez v. Ryan, 132
S. Ct. 1309 (Mar. 20, 2012). Upon consideration of the
submission, which we file and review as a petition for a writ of
mandamus, it appears that petitioner does not have a clear and
indisputable right to the appointment of counsel in a post-
conviction proceeding. See generally Engstrom v. Naauao, 51 Haw.
318, 321, 459 P.2d 376, 378 (1969). Petitioner fails to
demonstrate his eligibility for appointed counsel and the
Martinez decision does not mandate the appointment of counsel.
Tierney, therefore, is not entitled to mandamus relief. 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). 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 HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for a
writ of mandamus is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, February 21, 2013.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
2