ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (Cr. No. 07-1-1535)
Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Upon consideration of petitioner Bernardino Ragasa, Jr.'s petition for a writ of mandamus, which was filed on May 3, 2013, the documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and the record, it appears that petitioner fails to demonstrate that he has a clear and indisputable right to 497 days of presentence credit or that respondent miscalculated his presentence credit. Moreover, petitioner previously sought similar relief in the circuit court by way of a HRPP Rule 40 petition (S.P.P. No. 10-1-0076), the circuit court denied the HRPP Rule 40 petition, and petitioner did not appeal from the circuit court's decision. 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); HRS § ...