Tierney v. State

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-13-0000095 21-FEB-2013 09:37 AM SCPW-13-000095 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I MICHAEL C. TIERNEY, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (S.P.P. No. 12-1-0011) ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.) Petitioner Michael C. Tierney submitted a document to the court entitled Motion for Appoin[t]ment of Counsel Demand by U.S. Supreme Court in which he contends that all states must appoint counsel in post-conviction proceedings pursuant to the United States Supreme Court s decision in Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (Mar. 20, 2012). Upon consideration of the submission, which we file and review as a petition for a writ of mandamus, it appears that petitioner does not have a clear and indisputable right to the appointment of counsel in a postconviction proceeding. See generally Engstrom v. Naauao, 51 Haw. 318, 321, 459 P.2d 376, 378 (1969). Petitioner fails to demonstrate his eligibility for appointed counsel and the Martinez decision does not mandate the appointment of counsel. Tierney, therefore, is not entitled to mandamus relief. 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). 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 21, 2013. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack 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.