Botelho v. Prosecuting Attorney Keith M. Kaneshiro

• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court
• Decided: June 20, 2016
• Docket: SCPW-16-0000443
• Status: Published

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-16-0000443 20-JUN-2016 01:36 PM

SCPW-16-0000443

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

NONOHE BOTELHO, Petitioner,

vs.

PROSECUTING ATTORNEY KEITH M. KANESHIRO; THE HONORABLE KAREN AHN;

STATE OF HAWAI'I; and MAKUOLA KEALIIKEKAI COLLINS, Respondents.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(CR. NO. 11-1-0077)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Upon consideration of petitioner Nonohe Botelho’s

petition for writ of mandamus, filed on June 1, 2016, 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 relief requested.

Petitioner, therefore, 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 a writ is meant to restrain a judge of an inferior court who 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 a writ of

mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, June 20, 2016.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson