Tierney v. Chan

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-10-0000207 22-DEC-2010 01:17 PM NO. SCPW-10-0000207 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I MICHAEL C. TIERNEY, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE DERRICK H.M. CHAN, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CR. NOS. 88-2209 and 89-0024) ORDER (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ. and Circuit Judge Trader, assigned by reason of vacancy) Upon consideration of petitioner Michael C. Tierney's petition for a writ of mandamus, it appears that forfeiture of bail is not a proceeding for which petitioner is entitled to appointment of counsel. mandamus relief. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to See HRS § 802-1 (1993); State v. Camara, 81 Hawai#i 324, 329 n.7, 916 P.2d 1225, 1330 n.7 (1996); 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.). 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 FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, December 22, 2010. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. /s/ Rom A. Trader 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.