Satoafaiga v. Loo ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                                                          Electronically Filed
    Supreme Court
    SCPW-18-0000042
    05-FEB-2018
    01:26 PM
    SCPW-18-0000042
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
    VICTORIA I. SATOAFAIGA, Petitioner,
    vs.
    THE HONORABLE RHONDA I. L. LOO, Judge of the Circuit Court
    of the Second Circuit, State of Hawai#i, Respondent Judge,
    and
    STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent.
    ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
    (Cr. No. 2CPC-17-0000969)
    ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
    (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
    Upon consideration of petitioner Victoria I.
    Satoafaiga’s petition for writ of mandamus, filed on January 22,
    2018, the documents attached thereto and submitted in support
    thereof, and the record, it appears that petitioner fails to
    demonstrate that she has a clear and indisputable right to the
    requested relief, that she lacks alternative means to seek relief
    or that the respondent judge committed a flagrant and manifest
    abuse of discretion in conducting the arraignment and scheduling
    the bail review hearing.   See HRPP Rules 10(e) and 43(e).       Based
    on the specific circumstances of this matter, petitioner is not
    entitled to the requested extraordinary writ.      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; such writs are
    not intended to supersede the legal discretionary authority of
    the lower courts; where a court has discretion to act, mandamus
    will not lie to interfere with or control the exercise of that
    discretion, even when the judge has acted erroneously, unless the
    judge has exceeded his or her jurisdiction, has committed a
    flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion, or has refused to act
    on a subject properly before the court under circumstances in
    which he or she has a legal duty to act).   Accordingly,
    IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of
    mandamus is denied.
    DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, February 5, 2018.
    /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
    /s/ Paula A. Nakayama
    /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
    /s/ Richard W. Pollack
    /s/ Michael D. Wilson
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: SCPW-18-0000042

Filed Date: 2/5/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/6/2018