Echineque v. Hawaii Paroling Authority

Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCPW-11-0000120
09-MAR-2011
01:58 PM
NO. SCPW-11-00000120
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
ARWIN R. ECHINEQUE, Petitioner,
vs.
HAWAI'I PAROLING AUTHORITY, Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
ORDER
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ.)
Upon consideration of petitioner Arwin R. Echineque’s
“Complaint” to the intermediate court of appeals, which is
treated as a petition for a writ of mandamus to the supreme
court, it appears that petitioner was sentenced in Cr. No. 06-1­
1633 to five years imprisonment for assault and one year
imprisonment for terroristic threatening, to be served
consecutively. The Hawaii Paroling Authority’s (HPA) original
minimum term expiration date of August 4, 2011 apparently did not
account for petitioner’s one-year consecutive sentence for
terroristic threatening and the HPA apparently corrected the
expiration date to August 2, 2012. Therefore, petitioner fails
to demonstrate a clear and disputable right to relief. See HRS §
602-5(3) (Supp. 2010) (The supreme court has jurisdiction and
power to issue writs of mandamus directed to public officers to
compel them to fulfill the duties of their offices.); 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, March 9, 2011.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.
/s/ James E. Duffy, Jr.
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
2