Kehano v. State

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-20-0000615 16-NOV-2020 01:50 PM Dkt. 16 ODDP SCPW-20-0000615 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I ROLAND I. KEHANO, SR., Petitioner, vs. CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI#I; and HAWAI#I PAROLING AUTHORITY, STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CAAP-20-0000587; CASE NO. 2PR191000002; CR. NO. 92-0560) ORDER DENYING PETITION AND MOTIONS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Wilson, JJ., and Circuit Judge Morikawa, assigned by reason of vacancy) On October 15, 2020, the appellate clerk’s office received a 153-page document from petitioner Roland I. Kehano, Sr. in which he asks this court to reverse his conviction of murder in the second degree. petition. The document was filed as a In addition, on November 2, 2020 and November 4, 2020, respectively, petitioner filed motions seeking the identical relief. Upon consideration of the petition and the record, it appears that to the extent petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus, he fails to demonstrate that he has a clear and indisputable right to the requested relief and is currently seeking relief in S.P.P. No. 19-0002 and CAAP-20-0000587. In addition, to the extent petitioner is seeking a writ of habeas corpus, there is no special reason for this court to invoke its jurisdiction in this matter. Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to the requested extraordinary writ from this court. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (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); Oili v. Chang, 54 Haw. 411, 412, 557 P.2d 787, 788 (1976) (“[The supreme] court will not exercise its original jurisdiction in habeas corpus proceedings when relief is available in a lower court and no special reason exists for invoking its jurisdiction.”). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition and motions are denied. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate court shall process the petition without payment of the filing fee. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, November 16, 2020. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Michael D. Wilson /s/ Trish K. Morikawa 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.