NO. 30045
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I
JAMES H. PFLUEGER, Petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE
RANDAL G.B. VALENCIANO, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT OF THE
FIFTH CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI‘I; and
DEPARTMENT OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF HAWAI‘I,
Respondents.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(CR.
NO. 08-1-0280)
ORDER
(By: Moon, C.J., Nakayama and Duffy, JJ.; and
Acoba, J. and Circuit Judge Hifo, in place of
Recktenwald, J., recused, Dissenting)
Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus filed by
petitioner James H. Pflueger and the
papers in support, it appears that the denial of the disqualification
of the Attorney General as prosecutor in Cr.
No. 08-1-0280 is reviewable on a appeal from a judgment of conviction,
should such a judgment be entered in Cr. No. 08-1-0280, and petitioner
fails to demonstrate that immediate review of the disqualification
matter is necessary to prevent
harm that cannot be remedied on appeal. Therefore, petitioner is not
entitled to mandamus relief. 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.); Wong v. Fong,
60 Haw. 601, 604, 593 P.2d
386, 389 (1979) (a writ of mandamus will issue from the denial of
disqualification of counsel where irreparable and
immediate harm would otherwise result); Chuck v. St. Paul Fire and Marine
Insurance Co., 61 Haw. 552, 560, 606 P.2d
1320, 1325-26 (1980) (a writ of mandamus will issue from the
disqualification of counsel where the petitioner will be
irreparably harmed by the delay associated with the ordinary appellate
process).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.
DATED: Honolulu,
Hawai‘i, October 30, 2009.