LAW L|BRA`E*€€Y

   
 

NO. 30583
:N THE sUPREME coURT 0F THE sTATE or HAwAi‘:
F' ~¢
DANYELA cAsTR0, Petiti@ner, §§
€..,.
DisTRIcT c0URT or THE F:RsT c:RcU1T, wAH:AwA D1v N, “} §§
sTATE oF HAwAIT, Resp0ndent. 1 §§ §§
<::'§ ¥\.`}
621

ORlGINAL PROCEEDING
(CASE NO. lDTA-lO-Ol758)

ORDER

C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, Duffy, and Recktenwald, JJ.)

(By: Moon,
Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of

mandamus and/or prohibition filed by petitioner Danyela Castro

and the papers in support, it appears that petitioner, if

convicted in Case NO. lDTA-lO-0l758, can seek review of any

adverse rulings of the district court by appealing from the final

judgment and can seek a stay of any sentence pending appeal

pursuant to HRS § 641-14 (l993). Therefore, petitioner is not

entitled to extraordinary relief. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawafi

200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (l999) (A writ of mandamus and/or

prohibition 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,

lT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
mandamus and/or prohibition is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawafi, July l2, 20l0.

w

i>L»uALLZ:L\fNNdLLLiggnW9-

fa-

/@-'t”“\»

&/¢.....e. »0»4@, a~-

