Background
Styran Eddie Rivera filed a March 10, 2026 “second motion for response,” which the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court construed as a petition for an extraordinary writ. Rivera sought relief concerning a Rule 40 post-conviction motion dated November 5, 2025.
The court determined that the Rule 40 motion was not before it. The record showed that Rivera filed that motion in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit in case No. 1PC001000029 on December 1, 2025. Rivera also filed a June 17, 2026 document styled as a petition for declaratory judgment “without relief,” which the court likewise construed as an extraordinary-writ petition.
The Court’s Holding
The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court denied both petitions without prejudice. It held that Rivera should seek the requested relief in the circuit court, rather than through an original extraordinary-writ proceeding in the supreme court.
The court relied on Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP v. Kim and, as to the second filing, Hawaiʻi Rules of Penal Procedure Rule 40. It also directed the appellate clerk to send the order to the First Circuit Criminal Administrative Judge.
Key Takeaways
- A petitioner generally must pursue Rule 40 post-conviction relief in the circuit court.
- Labels assigned to pro se filings do not control; the court may construe them as extraordinary-writ petitions.
- The denials were without prejudice, leaving Rivera free to seek relief in the proper circuit court.
Why It Matters
The order reinforces the proper forum for post-conviction requests and the limited role of original extraordinary-writ proceedings when relief remains available in the circuit court. Its without-prejudice disposition preserves the petitioner’s opportunity to pursue the underlying claims in that forum.