Smith v. Nakamura

CourtHawaii Supreme Court
DecidedApril 24, 2013
DocketSCPW-13-0000186
StatusPublished

This text of Smith v. Nakamura (Smith v. Nakamura) 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
Smith v. Nakamura, (haw 2013).

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-13-0000186 24-APR-2013 03:04 PM

SCPW-13-0000186

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

ROBERT SMITH, JR., Petitioner,

vs.

THE HON. GREG K. NAKAMURA, JUDGE, CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT, Respondent Judge

and

STATE OF HAWAI'I, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(CR. NO. 12-1-00463)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

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

Upon consideration of petitioner Robert Smith, Jr.’s

petition for a writ of mandamus, filed on March 15, 2013, the

documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and

the record, the February 8, 2013 bail condition order does not

appear to provide a mechanism by which the random testing

condition can be immediately enforced against petitioner without

a further order of the court. Additionally, petitioner did not

directly challenge by motion the February 8, 2013 bail condition

order in the circuit court. Petitioner, therefore, is not

entitled to mandamus relief at this time. 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 judge has

acted erroneously, unless the judge has exceeded his or her

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 he or she has a legal duty

to act). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of

mandamus and request for attorneys’ fees and costs are denied

without prejudice.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, April 24, 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)
Smith v. Nakamura, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-nakamura-haw-2013.