Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCPW-16-0000443
20-JUN-2016
01:36 PM
SCPW-16-0000443
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
NONOHE BOTELHO, Petitioner,
vs.
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY KEITH M. KANESHIRO; THE HONORABLE KAREN AHN;
STATE OF HAWAI'I; and MAKUOLA KEALIIKEKAI COLLINS, Respondents.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(CR. NO. 11-1-0077)
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
Upon consideration of petitioner Nonohe Botelho’s
petition for writ of mandamus, filed on June 1, 2016, the
documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and
the record, it appears that petitioner fails to demonstrate that
she has a clear and indisputable right to the relief requested.
Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to the requested
extraordinary writ. 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 a writ is meant to restrain a
judge of an inferior court who has exceeded his or her
jurisdiction, has committed a flagrant and manifest abuse of
discretion, or has refused to act on a subject properly before
the court under circumstances in which he or she has a legal duty
to act). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
mandamus is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, June 20, 2016.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
/s/ Michael D. Wilson
2
Botelho v. Prosecuting Attorney Keith M. Kaneshiro
Combined Opinion