Tierney v. Hionaka

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-12-0001014 24-DEC-2012 08:05 AM SCPW-12-0001014 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I MICHAEL C. TIERNEY, Petitioner, vs. RANDALL HIRONAKA, Court-Appointed Attorney, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ORDER (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.) Upon consideration of Petitioner Michael C. Tierney s petition for a writ of mandamus, which was filed on November 16, 2012, and the record, it appears that petitioner is not entitled to mandamus relief inasmuch as (1) court-appointed counsel, Randall Hironaka, filed a motion to withdraw as counsel in Cr. No. 08-1-0869 on December 10, 2012, and (2) petitioner can seek the appointment of new counsel, as appropriate, in the circuit court. 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; such writs are not intended to supersede the legal discretionary authority of the lower courts, nor are they intended to serve as legal remedies in lieu of normal appellate procedures). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is (1) denied as moot as to petitioner s request for court-appointed counsel to file a motion to withdraw as counsel, and (2) denied as to petitioner s request for the appointment of new counsel. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, December 24, 2012. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack

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.