MONTY V. RIDEOUT, Petitioner,
STATE OF HAWAI'I, Respondent. v.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CAAP-13-0001700; S.P.P. No. 13-1-001K)
Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.
ORDER DENYING "WRIT OF CERTIORARI, MOTION FOR TRANSCRIPTS, MOTION FOR ASSIGNED COUNSEL"
Upon review of petitioner Monty V. Rideout's "Writ of Certiorari, Motion for Transcripts, Motion for Assigned Counsel", which was filed on December 24, 2013, and which we review as a petition for a writ of mandamus, the supporting documents, and the record, it appears that petitioner is not entitled to a writ of mandamus. Petitioner does not have a clear and indisputable right to the appointment of counsel for an appeal in a postconviction proceeding and fails to demonstrate that he is eligible for appointed counsel or that the appeal warrants the discretionary appointment of counsel. Petitioner, moreover, fails to demonstrate that the State of Hawai'i is required to provide him free copies of the requested transcripts or that the requested transcripts are part of the appellate record. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai'i 200, 204-05, 982 P.2d 334, 338-39 (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; where a court has discretion to act, mandamus will not lie to interfere with or control the exercise of that discretion, even when the court has acted erroneously, unless the court has exceeded its jurisdiction, has committed a flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion, or has refused to act on a subject properly before the court under circumstances in which it has a legal duty to act). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate court shall process the petition for a writ of mandamus ...