Ruh v. Intermediate Court of Appeals
This text of Ruh v. Intermediate Court of Appeals (Ruh v. Intermediate Court of Appeals) 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.
Opinion
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-13-0000050 14-FEB-2013 08:42 AM
SCPW-13-0000050
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
RICHARD RUH, Petitioner,
vs.
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CAAP-12-0001021; S.P.P. NO. 12-1-0003(2))
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.)
Upon consideration of petitioner Richard Ruh’s petition
for a writ of mandamus, which was filed on January 28, 2013, the
documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and
the record, it appears that petitioner does not have a clear and
indisputable right to the appointment of counsel for an appeal in
a post-conviction proceeding. Moreover, petitioner fails to
demonstrate that the ICA exceeded its jurisdiction in denying his
request for the appointment of counsel, committed a flagrant and
manifest abuse of discretion in doing so, or has refused to act
on a subject properly before the court under circumstances in
which the court has a legal duty to act. Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to a writ of mandamus. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91
Hawai#i 200, 204-05, 982 P.2d 334, 338-39 (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; where a court has
discretion to act, mandamus will not lie to interfere with or
control the exercise of that discretion, even when the court has
acted erroneously, unless the court has exceeded its
jurisdiction, has committed a flagrant and manifest abuse of
discretion, or has refused to act on a subject properly before
the court under circumstances in which it has a legal duty to
act). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate
court shall process the petition for a writ of mandamus without
payment of the filing fee.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for a
writ of mandamus is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, February 14, 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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Ruh v. Intermediate Court of Appeals, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruh-v-intermediate-court-of-appeals-haw-2013.