Quilausing v. Department of Public Safety, State of Hawaii

• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court
• Decided: January 25, 2012
• Docket: SCPW-12-0000015
• Status: Published

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-12-0000015 25-JAN-2012 01:58 PM

NO. SCPW-12-0000015

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

KYLE QUILAUSING, Petitioner,

vs.

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, STATE OF HAWAI'I, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and McKenna, JJ.)

Upon consideration of petitioner Kyle Quilausing's

petition for a writ of mandamus and the papers in support, it

appears that petitioner provides no evidence that the Department

of Public Safety has not properly adjusted petitioner's minimum

and maximum term sentences in accordance with the circuit court's

February 23, 2010 order. Petitioner fails to demonstrate a clear

and indisputable right to relief. Therefore, petitioner is not

entitled to mandamus relief. See HRS § 602-5(3) (2010) (“The

supreme court shall have jurisdiction and power . . . [t]o

exercise original jurisdiction in all questions . . . arising

under writs of mandamus directed to public officers to compel

them to fulfill the duties of their offices[.]”); In re

Disciplinary Bd. of Hawaii Supreme Court, 91 Hawai'i 363, 368,

984 P.2d 688, 693 (1999) (Mandamus relief is available to compel

an official to perform a duty allegedly owed to an individual

only if the individual’s claim is clear and certain, the

official’s duty is ministerial and so plainly prescribed as to be

free from doubt, and no other remedy is available.).

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate

court shall process the petition for writ of mandamus without

payment of the filing fee.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for a writ of

mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, January 25, 2012.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

/s/ James E. Duffy, Jr.

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna