NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
NO. 29673
IN
THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I
Petitioner-Appellant Richard Blaisdell (Blaisdell) appeals the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order (Order), filed in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court) (1) on January 29, 2009, that denied his Petition for Post-Conviction Relief (Petition), pursuant to Rule 40 of the Hawai‘i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP).
On appeal, Blaisdell asserts the following points of error:
1. The court erred by
dismissing his previous Rule 40 petitions without hearings because the
petitions were frivolous and without a
trace of support.
3. The court erred by
failing to recognize that petitioner was following district court judge
Ezra's instructions as to how to exhaust his
state remedies
and proceed to federal jurisdiction.
5. The court erred by ruling incorrectly on the previous rule 40 petition as ruled on or waived.
7. Petitioner's speedy
trial was a farce because he spent almost 4 years in Jail, (pre-trial),
before he was convicted and the court erred
by not granting
more of his rule 48 motions when it should have.
9. The court erred when it
not only failed to expose the perjury of State Witness Loretta Kauo
committing perjury, but also removed
that fact from
the court record.
Blaisdell previously filed three petitions for post-conviction relief related to his convictions in Cr. Nos. 90-1541 and 92-2513. The denial of those petitions was affirmed by this court in No. 22758. Blaisdell subsequently filed another petition in S.P.P. 00-1-0008 which was denied by the Circuit Court; this court affirmed the denial in consolidated appeal Nos. 23983 and 24098. More recently, Blaisdell filed yet another petition for post-conviction relief in S.P.P. 08-1-0005; this court again affirmed the denial of his petition in No. 29328.
In the appeal from this most-recent Petition, Blaisdell again asserts many of the same grounds for relief which were previously ruled upon and denied. Therefore, relief pursuant to HRPP Rule 40 is not available. HRPP Rule 40(a)(3).
With respect to any remaining points of error, Blaisdell is unable to demonstrate the existence of the extraordinary circumstances necessary to overcome his failure to raise the issues in his numerous previous petitions and appeals. Therefore, relief pursuant to HRPP Rule 40 is not available. HRPP Rule 40(a)(3).
For these reasons, the Circuit Court's January 29, 2009 Order is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, December 29, 2009.
On the briefs:1.
The Honorable Virginia Lea Crandall presided.