Hoapili v. Hawai'i Paroling Authority
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-23-0000329 24-JUL-2023 10:50 AM Dkt. 5 ODDP SCPW-23-0000329 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I ________________________________________________________________ ANTONE K. HOAPILI, Petitioner, vs. HAWAI I PAROLING AUTHORITY, Respondent-Agency, and STATE OF HAWAI I, Respondent. ________________________________________________________________ ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (1CPC-20-0000738) ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION AND/OR MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, and Eddins, JJ., Circuit Judge Ochiai and Circuit Judge Ashford, assigned by reason of vacancies) Upon consideration of the petition for writ of prohibition and/or mandamus filed on May 2, 2023, and the record, this court has applied the standard applicable to public officials in original proceedings seeking an extraordinary writ against the Hawai i Paroling Authority (HPA). To that end, this court does not have authority to issue a writ of prohibition directed to a public official. See HRS § 602-5(a)(3) (2016) (“(a) Except as otherwise provided, the supreme court shall have jurisdiction and powers as follows: . . . (3) To exercise original jurisdiction . . . if the supreme court consents to receive the case arising under writs of mandamus directed to public officers to compel them to fulfill the duties of their offices[.]” (Emphases added)); Hawai i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 21(b) (2023) (writs of mandamus directed to a public officer). Instead: “Mandamus relief is available to compel an official to perform a duty allegedly owed to an individual only if the individual’s claim is clear and certain, the official’s duty is ministerial and so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt, and no other remedy is available.” Barnett v. Broderick, 84 Hawai i 109, 111, 929 P.2d 1359, 1361 (1996). A duty is ministerial if the law prescribes and defines the duty to be performed with such precision and certainty as to leave nothing to the exercise of discretion and judgment. Salling v. Moon, 76 Hawai i 273, 274 n.3, 874 P.2d 1098, 1099 n.3 (1994). Here, Petitioner has not demonstrated a duty that the HPA must be compelled to perform, and that the identified duty is defined with such precision and certainty as to leave nothing to 2 the exercise of discretion and judgment. Petitioner instead asserts that the HPA is prohibited or should be prevented from holding a sex offender determination hearing. It is ordered that the petition is denied. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, July 24, 2023. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Todd W. Eddins /s/ Dean E. Ochiai /s/ James H. Ashford 3
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.
