Posts

Showing posts with the label jurisdiction

HSC strikes down proof-of-compliance hearings for defendants who aren’t on probation and haven’t defaulted

  State v. Fay (HSC June 17, 2024) Background. Melissa Fay crashed her car into a tree and was charged with traffic offenses in the district court. She pleaded no contest to driving under the influence of an intoxicant, driving without insurance, and the amended charge of criminal property damage in the fourth degree. She also agreed to pay restitution. Kahului Auto Sales, Inc., owned the car and made a restitution claim. The Judiciary’s Monetary Restitution Program recommended that Fay pay $6,504. The parties agreed to the amount and the district court issued an order for restitution in that amount at a rate of $50.00 per month.   The district court with the Hon. Judge Lauren Akitake presiding ordered Fay to return to court in six months if the amount was not paid off. The court told Fay that the hearings would be ongoing until it was paid off. Fay objected, but the hearing was set. Fay appealed. The ICA affirmed. Fay petitioned for further review.   The statu...

Courts don’t need a charging document for jurisdiction, but do need a pretty good reason to impose consecutive terms

  State v. Bautista (HSC September 13, 2023) Background. The prosecution filed a complaint in the district court alleging seven crimes of violence against Rommel Bautista, including attempted murder in the second degree. All of the charges stemmed from an incident that occurred between Bautista and his wife in their home in Kahului. The district court held a preliminary hearing and found probable cause supported every count. The district court confirmed bail and committed the case to the circuit court.   The prosecution did not file a complaint in the circuit court. At the arraignment, Bautista pleaded not guilty. Five months later, the parties reached an agreement. Bautista pleaded no contest to three class C felonies: assault in the second degree, terroristic threatening in the first degree, and abuse of a family or household member in the presence of a minor. All other counts—including the attempted murder and assault in the first degree—were dismissed. There were no...

Appeal from dismissal of the first case does not divest trial court’s jurisdiction over the later-filed second case.

  State v. Michaeledes (HSC March 3, 2023) Background. The prosecution charged in a felony information and non-felony complaint David Michaeledes with three counts of reckless driving, assault in the 2d degree, and accidents involving substantial bodily injury. Michaeledes moved to dismiss the charging document on the grounds that its language was fatally flawed. The prosecution moved to amend the charging document. The circuit court, with the Honorable Randal G. B. Valenciano presiding, denied the prosecution’s motion to amend, granted Michaeledes’ motion to dismiss, and dismissed the case without prejudice. The prosecution filed a notice of appeal thereby appealing from the order dismissing the case and the order denying its motion to amend.   While the case was on appeal, the prosecution filed a second charging document—this time with the correct language—alleging the same counts. Michaeledes moved to dismiss this case on the grounds that the circuit court did not ha...

Family Courts Retain Jurisdiction even After Dismissal of Offenses Relating to the Family

  State v. Milne (HSC June 23, 2021) Background. Noguchi Milne was charged with one count of abuse of a family or household member based on abusing his girlfriend and one count of assault in the third degree based on abusing his girlfriend’s father. The complainants were not sharing the same household. At a trial call, the prosecution moved to continue trial because both witnesses did not come to court. The family court, with the Hon. Judge Kevin Souza presiding, granted the motion over Milne’s objection. Milne orally moved to dismiss the assault count for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The family court stated at the hearing that it had concurrent jurisdiction and decided to dismiss the count without prejudice to let the prosecution file another complaint in the district court. In its written order, however, the family court stated that it dismissed the count for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The family court granted the motion and issued a dismissal order. The pros...

HSC Extends Right to Counsel (and a Deadline) in Proceedings Before the HSC

State v. Uchima (HSC May 19, 2020) Background. Jason Uchima was charged with operating a vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant. He moved to suppress evidence seized by the police after he was arrested, including all of his statements to the police. he argued that while in custody he was ordered to get out of his vehicle and participate in field sobriety tests. This constituted a custodial interrogation and he should have been apprised of his Miranda warnings. The motion was denied and he was found guilty. Uchima appealed and the ICA affirmed. The ICA’s judgment on appeal as issued on March 19, 2018. After requesting an extension, the deadline to file the application for petition of a writ of certiorari became May 18, 2018. Uchima filed his application six days after the deadline along with a motion to accept the untimely application. In the motion Uchima explained that he failed to correctly calendar to the deadline. It was either a “computer system error or his c...

Yes, Forgery Includes Using Counterfeit Cash

State v. Eberly (ICA March 31, 2014) Background. Bardwell Eberly, Antony Moore, and Chrisitna Whitley were originally charged with forgery in the first degree. HRS § 708-853. Specifically, they were charged with “uttering” a forged instrument “purported to be United States Currency.” Eberly pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of forgery in the third degree. Before sentencing, however, the HSC in an unrelated case affirmed Eberly’s conviction and sentence to prison. The sentence was stayed pending appeal this entire time. Now that it had come down, the trial court in this case told Eberly that he could not be sentenced to probation. Eberly moved to withdraw his guilty plea. He was sentenced to a year in jail. Eberly appealed. The Issue and the two big Procedural Problems. Eberly presented a straight-forward issue on appeal: the forgery statutes plainly and unambiguously do not include counterfeiting U.S. currency. The problem in getting to the issue is that it was never raised b...

Prosecution Need only Disprove one of three Elements to Keep it a Class A Kidnapping

State v. Bailey (HSC December 24, 2013) Background. Ezra Kualaau contacted Andrew Rodriguez to buy crack cocaine. Rodriguez and Bladesin-Isaiah Bailey went to Kualaau’s house in a white Chevy Impala. Kualaau had no shirt or shoes on and was wearing basketball shorts when he joined them at a park across the street from his house in Waiau on the island of Oahu. Rodriguez sat in the driver’s seat, Bailey in the front seat passenger’s seat, and Kualaau in the back. After a cop car drove by, the Bailey and Rodriguez looked at each other, Bailey went to his trunk and Kualaau started getting hit. He was struck in the head and lost consciousness. He was handcuffed and placed in the trunk and then they drove off. In the trunk, Kualaau accessed his cell phone and texted his mother that he was being kidnapped and he called 911. The car drove to a cul-de-sac and parked. They placed a plastic bag and cloth over Kualaau’s head. They walked him up a trail and told him that if he made noise, they’...

Wheeler Doesn't Apply to your Rule 40 Petition

Christian v. State (ICA November 27, 2013) Background. In early 2008, Edmund Christian was charged with a single count of operating a vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant under both theories—having over 0.08 or more grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath and having an amount sufficient to impair his normal mental faculties and guard against casualty—as well as disobeying a police officer. The DUI charge did not explicitly allege that Christian was operating on a “public way, street, road, or highway” as defined in HRS § 291E-1. Months later, Christian took a plea deal and the second count was dismissed in exchange for pleading no contest to the DUI charge. He was fined $700 with fees and “assessments.” He did not challenge the sufficiency of the charge appeal. Almost two years later, in 2010, Christian filed a petition pursuant to Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure Rule 40 that collaterally attacked the conviction. In the petition, Christian argued that the failur...