Posts

Showing posts with the label probation

ICA determines when a “modification” to probation terms is also an “enlargement” invoking the tolling statute

  State v. Wilbur-Delima (ICA July 29, 2024) Background. Kamalei Wilbur-Delima was charged with multiple offenses in three different felony cases. He was sentenced to probation but it was revoked. He also picked up another felony case. He eventually pleaded guilty and was sentenced and resentenced to probation. The judgment of conviction and the resentencing orders with conditions was entered on April 26, 2017. Two months later, Wilbur-Delima entered the Hawai'i’s Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) Probation Program, a program on Oahu designed to give “swift, predictable, and immediate sanctions” for violations.   From 2017 through 2020, the prosecution filed motions when Wilbur-Delima violated the terms of his probation. The prosecution called these motions for “Modification” of the terms and conditions. Wilbur-Delima did not contest the violations and was sanctioned with a jail ranging from 3 to 41 days jail. It later changed the title to a motion to modify...

Probation doesn't toll when the motion to revoke probation is never heard on the merits and is dismissed

  State v. Banares (ICA October 16, 2023) Background. Joven Joseph Banares was charged with promoting a dangerous drug in the third degree, pleaded no contest, and was sentenced to four years of probation. Probation started in May 2016. A little more than a year into his probationary term, the prosecution filed a motion to revoke probation and to resentence him to imprisonment based on alleged violations of the terms and conditions of probation. To bring Banares into court, the court issued a warrant for his arrest on February 7, 2017. The warrant was not served until January 17, 2022.   Banares moved to dismiss on the grounds that the delay in serving the warrant violated Hawai'i Rules of Penal Procedure Rule 9. Banares also argued that upon dismissal, his time on probation would have run because it has not been tolled. The prosecution agreed that there was no effort to serve the warrant and agreed that there was a Rule 9 violation. It did object to tolling the time. T...