In re: Kekona-Cramer

• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court
• Decided: February 19, 2025
• Docket: SCPW-25-0000035
• Status: Published

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX 19-FEB-2025 10:45 AM Dkt. 8 ODDP

SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

IN RE SHEENA KEKONA-CRAMER

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, JJ.)

On January 21, 2025, Petitioner Sheena Kekona-Cramer

submitted letters to court, which were filed as a petition for

writ of mandamus, seeking review of the Hawaiʻi Paroling

Authority’s (HPA) decision to deny parole (petition). Petitioner

claimed the reason the HPA denied her parole was because it did

not believe she was ready for release. Petitioner further

claimed the denial of parole was a form of punishment.

We decline to entertain the petition. See Hawaiʻi Rules of

Appellate Procedure, Rule 21(c) (eff. 2010).

In general, mandamus relief is not available where the

petitioner has alternative means to obtain the requested relief. See Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP v. Kim, 153 Hawaiʻi 307, 319,

537 P.3d 1154, 1166 (2023) (providing that a petition for

mandamus relief must establish a clear and indisputable right to

the relief requested and a lack of other means to redress

adequately the alleged wrong or to obtain the requested

action.).

Here, Petitioner has alternative means to seek the requested

relief. First, Petitioner may seek relief directly from the

HPA. Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes § 706-670(4) (2014 & Supp. 2022)

provides, in pertinent part, for the HPA in its discretion to

order a reconsideration or rehearing of a case at any time. We

note that Petitioner claims she has already attempted to seek

reconsideration from the HPA. However, Petitioner may also seek

review of a HPA decision to deny parole by filing a petition for

relief under Rule 40 of the Hawaiʻi Rules of Penal Procedure

(HRPP) in the Second Circuit Court. See Williamson v. Hawaiʻi

Paroling Auth., 97 Hawaiʻi 183, 194, 35 P.3d 210, 221 (2001). In

evaluating a HRPP Rule 40 petition seeking relief directed to the

HPA, “judicial intervention is appropriate where the HPA has

failed to exercise any discretion at all, acted arbitrarily and

capriciously so as to give rise to a due process violation, or

otherwise violated the prisoner’s constitutional rights.” Id. at

195, 35 P.3d at 222; see also Rapozo v. State, 150 Hawaiʻi 66, 84,

497 P.3d 81, 99 (2021). 2 For the reasons stated, we decline to entertain the

petition. The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied without

prejudice. The clerk of the appellate court shall process the

petition without payment of the filing fee.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, February 19, 2025.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza

/s/ Vladimir P. Devens