Chavez v. Wong

CourtHawaii Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 9, 2018
DocketSCPW-18-0000823
StatusPublished

This text of Chavez v. Wong (Chavez v. Wong) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hawaii Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Chavez v. Wong, (haw 2018).

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX 09-NOV-2018 09:53 AM

SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

LEONARDO R. CHAVEZ, Petitioner,

vs.

THE HONORABLE PAUL B. K. WONG, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI#I; DEPUTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY THALIA MURPHY; ATTORNEY SALINA KANAI ALTHOF; STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondents.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CR. NO. 14-1-0360)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Upon consideration of petitioner Leonardo R. Chavez’s

petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed on October 25, 2018,

the documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof,

and the record, it appears that petitioner presents no special

reason for this court to invoke its jurisdiction at this time and

fails to demonstrate that he has a clear and indisputable right

to relief and a lack of alternative means to seek relief. See

Oili v. Chang, 57 Haw. 411, 412, 557 P.2d 787, 788 (1976) (the

supreme court will not exercise its original jurisdiction in

habeas corpus proceedings when no special reason exists for invoking its jurisdiction”); 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); Honolulu Advertiser, Inc. v. Takao, 59 Haw.

237, 241, 580 P.2d 58, 62 (1978) (a writ of mandamus is not

intended to supersede the legal discretionary authority of the

trial courts, cure a mere legal error, or serve as a legal remedy

in lieu of normal appellate procedure). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of

habeas corpus is denied.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the

appellate court shall process the petition for writ of habeas

corpus without payment of the filing fee.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, November 9, 2018.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Oili v. Chang
557 P.2d 787 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1976)
Honolulu Advertiser, Inc. v. Takao
580 P.2d 58 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1978)
Kema v. Gaddis
982 P.2d 334 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Chavez v. Wong, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chavez-v-wong-haw-2018.