Rideout v. State

Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCPW-13-0006235
08-JAN-2014
01:45 PM
SCPW-13-0006235
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
MONTY V. RIDEOUT, Petitioner,
vs.
STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(CAAP-13-0001700; S.P.P. No. 13-1-001K)
ORDER DENYING “WRIT OF CERTIORARI, MOTION
FOR TRANSCRIPTS, MOTION FOR ASSIGNED COUNSEL”
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.)
Upon review of petitioner Monty V. Rideout’s “Writ of
Certiorari, Motion for Transcripts, Motion for Assigned Counsel”,
which was filed on December 24, 2013, and which we review as a
petition for a writ of mandamus, the supporting documents, and
the record, it appears that petitioner is not entitled to a writ
of mandamus. Petitioner does not have a clear and indisputable
right to the appointment of counsel for an appeal in a post-
conviction proceeding and fails to demonstrate that he is
eligible for appointed counsel or that the appeal warrants the
discretionary appointment of counsel. Petitioner, moreover,
fails to demonstrate that the State of Hawai#i is required to
provide him free copies of the requested transcripts or that the
requested transcripts are part of the appellate record. 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; where a court
has discretion to act, mandamus will not lie to interfere with or
control the exercise of that discretion, even when the court has
acted erroneously, unless the court has exceeded its
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 it has a legal duty to
act). 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, January 8, 2014.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
2