Jones v. State

Hawaii Supreme Court

Jones v. State

DecidedSeptember 30, 2020

DocketSCPW-20-0000558

StatusPublished

This text of Jones v. State (Jones v. State) 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

Jones v. State, (haw 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX 30-SEP-2020 02:26 PM

SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

LEMUEL JONES, Petitioner,

vs.

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CASE NO. 1PC101000882)

ORDER DENYING PETITION (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, and McKenna, JJ., and Circuit Judge Viola, assigned by reason of vacancy, with Wilson, J., concurring)

Upon consideration of petitioner’s “Motion to Release Non-Violent Community Custody Prisoner from Custody with Special Release Terms and Conditions Amid the Coronavirus COVID-19 Bio- Terrorism Pandemic”, which was filed as a petition on September 11, 2020, the documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and the record, it appears that petitioner fails to demonstrate that he is entitled to the requested extraordinary relief from this court. 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); Oili v. Chang, 54 Haw. 411, 412, 557 P.2d 787, 788 (1976) (“[The supreme] court will not exercise its original jurisdiction in habeas corpus proceedings when relief is available in a lower court and no special reason exists for invoking its jurisdiction.”). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition is denied. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate court shall process the petition without payment of the filing fee. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, September 30, 2020. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Matthew J. Viola

CONCURRENCE (By: Wilson, J.)

For the reasons stated in my concurrence order in Sandry v. State, SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX, filed on June 24, 2020, I concur. /s/ Michael D. Wilson

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

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX 30-SEP-2020 02:26 PM

SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

LEMUEL JONES, Petitioner,

vs.

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CASE NO. 1PC101000882)

ORDER DENYING PETITION (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, and McKenna, JJ., and Circuit Judge Viola, assigned by reason of vacancy, with Wilson, J., concurring)

Upon consideration of petitioner’s “Motion to Release Non-Violent Community Custody Prisoner from Custody with Special Release Terms and Conditions Amid the Coronavirus COVID-19 Bio- Terrorism Pandemic”, which was filed as a petition on September 11, 2020, the documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and the record, it appears that petitioner fails to demonstrate that he is entitled to the requested extraordinary relief from this court. 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); Oili v. Chang, 54 Haw. 411, 412, 557 P.2d 787, 788 (1976) (“[The supreme] court will not exercise its original jurisdiction in habeas corpus proceedings when relief is available in a lower court and no special reason exists for invoking its jurisdiction.”). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition is denied. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate court shall process the petition without payment of the filing fee. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, September 30, 2020. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Matthew J. Viola

CONCURRENCE (By: Wilson, J.)

For the reasons stated in my concurrence order in Sandry v. State, SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX, filed on June 24, 2020, I concur. /s/ Michael D. Wilson

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jones v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-state-haw-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack