Tierney v. Sheriff's Division, Department of Public Safety

Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCPW-12-0000978 SCPW-12-0000978
04-JAN-2013
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
10:24 AM
MICHAEL C. TIERNEY, Petitioner,
vs.
SHERIFF'S DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
SAFETY, STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondents.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.)
Petitioner Michael C. Tierney submitted a petition for
a writ of mandamus, which was filed on November 2, 2012.
Petitioner seeks an order directing the sheriffs for the State of
Hawai#i to transport him to court hearings in Cr. No. 1P108-6561
and Cr. No. 08-1-0869.
Although a criminal defendant generally has a right to
be present in the courtroom during proceedings in his or her
case, this right is only guaranteed for proceedings that are
critical to the outcome if the defendant’s presence would
contribute to the fairness of the procedure. See Kentucky v.
Stincer, 482 U.S. 730, 856 (1987); Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291
U.S. 97, 105-06 (1934), overruled in part on other grounds by
Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964) (the right to be present
extends to those proceedings at which the defendant’s “presence
has a relation, reasonably substantial, to the fullness of his
opportunity to defend against the charge”). This right does not
extend to purely procedural hearings. See United States v.
Gagnon, 470 U.S. 522, 526 (1985).
Petitioner fails to demonstrate that he was excluded or
will be excluded from any hearing that implicates his right to
confront witnesses and/or defend against the charges against him.
Moreover, petitioner has not demonstrated that there are hearings
pending in Cr. No. 1P108-6561 or Cr. No. 08-1-0869 that implicate
his constitutional right to be present. 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, January 4, 2013.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
2