State v. Shinyama
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 23669 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I _________________________________________________________________ STATE OF HAWAI#I, Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellee vs. DANIEL E. K. SHINYAMA, Respondent/Defendant-Appellant _________________________________________________________________ CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CR. NO. 99-0457(2)) (By: ORDER Ramil, J.) Upon consideration of Respondent/Defendant-Appellant Daniel E. K. Shinyama s motion for order to strike the application for writ of certiorari filed by Petitioner/PlaintiffAppellee State of Hawai#i, the papers in support, and the records and files herein, it appears that the application for a writ of certiorari filed by the State of Hawai#i does not comply with the requirements set forth in Rules 32(a) and 32(b) of the Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP). Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Arleen Y. Watanabe, Esq., attorney for Petitioner/PlaintiffAppellee, shall, within 10 days after the date of this order, show cause as to why she should not be sanctioned for failing to comply with HRAP Rules 32(a) and 32(b). this order may result in sanctions. Failure to respond to IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to strike the application for writ of certiorari is denied. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, February 14, 2002. Associate Justice Deborah L. Kim, Deputy Public Defender, on the motion -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
