Posts

Showing posts with the label plea agreement

Getting out of a plea deal the (not so) easy way?

  State v. Walter (HSC June 5, 2025). Weiser Walter was indicted for attempted murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree, and attempted 2d degree murder after he was arrested for stabbing his adoptive sister and four-year-old nephew, who later died of his injuries. He was represented by deputy public defender, Crystal Glendon. He claimed that he had been guided by demons or God and wanted to asserted the insanity defense in HRS Chapter 704. The circuit court granted a motion to have three evaluators determine his mental state at the time of the offense. Two out of the three concluded that Walter lacked penal responsibility. The third’s opinion was non-conclusive.   The prosecution moved to bring in two additional experts to assess Walter’s penal responsibility. His attorney simply made a “record objection”—an objection with no legal basis or argument. The motion was granted. These additional experts concluded that Walter was penally responsible.   Af...

HSC Expands “Fair and Just Reasons” to Withdraw a Perfectly Valid No-Contest Plea

  State v. Pedro (HSC June 4, 2021) Background. Theo Pedro was charged with four counts of sexual assault in the first degree, attempted sexual assault in in the first degree, sexual assault in the third degree, and kidnapping. Pedro pleaded not guilty and the Family Court of the 2d Circuit, with the Hon. Judge Richard T. Bissen, Jr. presiding, set trial. At a hearing on the defense’s motion to compel discovery, counsel announced that the parties reached a plea agreement. Pedro would plead no contest to four amended counts of sexual assault in the second degree and the other counts would be dismissed. The prosecution could seek concurrent terms of imprisonment capped at ten years. Pedro could was free to argue for probation.   Pedro’s decision to agree to the plea offer was unexpected and came as a surprise to defense counsel, the prosecutor, and the court. Using the standard change of plea form and with the assistance of a Marshallese interpreter, defense counsel repre...

Counsel Can’t Downplay the Severity of an Aggravated Felony Conviction

  Araiza v. State (HSC January 26, 2021) Background. Edelmira Salayes Araiza, a citizen of Mexico and lawful permanent resident in the United States, was charged with theft by deception in the first degree after living in Hawai'i for decades. At her arraignment, the circuit court—the Hon. Judge Rhonda I. L. Loo presided—warned Araiza pursuant to HRS § 802E-4 that the case could have “severe and irreversible consequences, including immediate detention, deportation or exclusion from admission or denial [of] naturalization to the United States. Your attorney must advise you regarding the possible consequences this case may have on your immigration status.”   Months later she pleaded no contest and moved for a deferred acceptance of her plea. In her change-of-plea form, Araiza and her attorney certified that the document had be read to her and explained or interpreted to her. The form also included an advisement that pleading no contest may result in deportation, detention,...

Restitution and its Consequences no Longer a Collateral Consequence at Change of Plea

State v. Kealoha (HSC March 15, 2018) Background. Kristopher Kealoha was charged with multiple offenses in three different case numbers. He pleaded guilty to all charges in exchange for an open five-year term of imprisonment running concurrent to each other. The circuit court pursuant to HRPP Rule 11 agreed to bind itself to the agreement. At the change-of-plea hearing and colloquy, Kealoha repeatedly said that as long he gets the open five year term “I’m good. I’m good with that.” No one discussed restitution. At sentencing, everyone confirmed the plea agreement for prison. The court, however, ordered more than $4,500 in restitution. Kealoha was surprised and astounded at having to pay for the restitution. Shortly after sentencing, counsel withdrew and new counsel was appointed. Kealoha appealed. Restitution is part of the “Maximum Penalty Provided by law.” Before accepting the defendant’s guilty or no-contest plea, the court is required to apprise the defendant in open ...

Sending a Letter Bound for the HPA is not “Remaining Silent” at the HPA.

State v. Garcia (HSC June 15, 2015) Background. Eddie Garcia was charged with one count of continuous sexual assault of a minor under the age of fourteen years, a Class A felony, and one count of abuse of family household member. He pleaded not guilty and prepared for trial. After the pre-trial voluntariness hearing, Mr. Garcia reached a plea agreement with the prosecution. Mr. Garcia agreed to plead no contest to both counts and agree to 20 years prison concurrent (he wouldn’t have to do 21 years). The prosecution agreed to “remain silent at the minimum term hearing” in front of the Hawaii Paroling Authority. Before sentencing, Garcia’s family and friends submitted to the pre-sentence investigator letters of support of him. His daughter also wrote a letter asking the Court to lessen his sentence because her mother was struggling without him. The prosecution also submitted a letter and three exhibits. The letter pointed out “some aggravating factors” even though it simultaneous...

Failure to Clarify Theory of OUI Meant no Theory can Proceed on Remand

State v. Nakano (HSC October 9, 2013) Background. Daniel Nakano was charged with operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant. HRS § 291E-61. The complaint alleged that Nakano either committed the offense by having an amount sufficient to impair his normal faculties or guard against casualty in violation of HRS § 291E-61(a)(1) and or by operating a vehicle with a BAC of 0.08 or more in his blood or breath in violation of (a)(3). The complaint did not plead any state of mind. Nakano and the prosecution entered a plea agreement. Nakano requested a conditional plea allowing him to plead no contest to HRS § 291E-61(a)(1) and challenge the sufficiency of the plea on appeal. There was nothing in the change-of-plea form or during the colloquy that indicated if the plea included the other theory under (a)(3). The prosecution agreed to the conditional plea and the district court sentenced Nakano, but stayed it pending appeal. On appeal, the ICA held that pursuant to State v....

No English, No Problem

Cun-Lara v. State (ICA March 28, 2012) Background. Isidro Oswaldo Cun-Lara, a citizen of Guatemala, was charged with methamphetamine trafficking (HRS § 712-1240.6(2)), promoting a dangerous drug in the third degree (HRS § 712-1243) and unlawful use of or possession of drug paraphernalia (HRS § 329-43.5(a)). He appeared for the arraignment, waived a preliminary hearing, and was arraigned again in the circuit court all without requesting an interpreter. He had an attorney with him too. All continuances of his trial at pretrial conferences were conducted in English without the aid of an interpreter. Cun-Lara entered a plea agreement. At the change-of-plea hearing, Cun-Lara pleaded no contest to the paraphernalia charge and moved to defer the no-contest plea. His attorney said that an interpreter was unnecessary. The change of plea colloquy was in English without an interpreter. He signed a change-of-plea form that expressly said that "if I am not a citizen of the United States, a...

A Rejected Offer (After a full and Fair Trial) may be Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Lafler v. Cooper (SCOTUS March 21, 2012) Note. This is the companion case to Missouri v. Frye . Background. Anthony Cooper fired a gun at Kali Mundy's head. He missed and Mundy fled. Cooper chased Mundy and fired at her some more. She was hit in her buttock, hip, and stomach, but survived. Cooper was charged with assault with the intent to murder, possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony, and a misdemeanor for possession of marijuana. Twice the prosecution offered to dismiss two charges and recommend at sentencing 51 to 85 months for the other two in exchange for a guilty plea. Cooper admitted guilt to the court and appeared to be ready to take the deal. But his attorney persuaded him to reject the offer after opining that they would be unable to prove murderous intent because Mundy was shot below the waist. Cooper then rejected the offers. On the first day of trial, the prosecution made a third offer on much favorable terms; again it was rejected. Cooper was fou...