Ragasa v. Simmons

CourtHawaii Supreme Court
DecidedJune 12, 2013
DocketSCPW-13-0000657
StatusPublished

This text of Ragasa v. Simmons (Ragasa v. Simmons) 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
Ragasa v. Simmons, (haw 2013).

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-13-0000657 12-JUN-2013 09:18 AM

SCPW-13-0000657

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

BERNARDINO RAGASA, JR., Petitioner,

vs.

NETTIE SIMMONS, OFFENDER MANAGEMENT OFFICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (Cr. No. 07-1-1535)

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

Upon consideration of petitioner Bernardino Ragasa,

Jr.’s petition for a writ of mandamus, which was filed on May 3,

2013, the documents attached thereto and submitted in support

thereof, and the record, it appears that petitioner fails to

demonstrate that he has a clear and indisputable right to 497

days of presentence credit or that respondent miscalculated his

presentence credit. Moreover, petitioner previously sought

similar relief in the circuit court by way of a HRPP Rule 40

petition (S.P.P. No. 10-1-0076), the circuit court denied the HRPP Rule 40 petition, and petitioner did not appeal from the

circuit court’s decision. Petitioner is not entitled to mandamus

relief. 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); HRS § 706-671 (1993) (a defendant is entitled to credit

for time served in presentence incarceration in connection with

the same offense; a defendant is not entitled to presentence

credit for time served in connection with an unrelated criminal

offense). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of

mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 12, 2013.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

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

Related

Kema v. Gaddis
982 P.2d 334 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ragasa v. Simmons, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ragasa-v-simmons-haw-2013.