420 P.3d 988 (Hawaii 2018), SCWC-16-0000428, Batalona v. State
|Citation:||420 P.3d 988, 142 Hawaii 458|
|Party Name:||Albert BATALONA, Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE of Hawaii, Respondent/Respondent-Appellee.|
|Attorney:||William H. Jameson, Jr., for petitioner. Loren J. Thomas, Honolulu, for respondent.|
|Judge Panel:||Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson JJ.)|
|Case Date:||June 28, 2018|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Hawai'i|
This decision has been designated as "Unpublished disposition." in the Pacific Reporter. See HI R RAP RULE 35
CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-16-0000428; S.P.P. NO. 10-1-0075; CR. NO. 03-1-0787)
William H. Jameson, Jr., for petitioner.
Loren J. Thomas, Honolulu, for respondent.
Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson JJ.)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant Albert Batalona appeals from the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) August 4, 2017 Judgment on Appeal, entered pursuant to its June 28, 2017 Memorandum Opinion affirming the Circuit Court of the First Circuits (circuit court) July 17, 2015 Amended Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Petition for Post-Conviction Relief.
In 2003, a jury found Batalona guilty of escape in the second degree, theft in the second degree, and theft in the fourth degree.1 Subsequently, the State filed a motion for an extended term of imprisonment, arguing that Batalona was a "multiple offender" under HRS § 706-662(4).2 On January 9, 2004, the circuit court held a hearing and granted the States motion for extended term sentencing, finding that Batalona had been previously convicted of multiple felonies and that an extended term of imprisonment was necessary to protect the public.
Batalona appealed to the ICA. Citing Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), Batalona argued that a jury must determine whether an extended term of imprisonment was necessary for the protection of the public. Batalona also argued that the circuit court was statutorily barred from ordering restitution for repairs to the correctional facility arising from Batalonas escape because the government was not a direct victim.
The ICA affirmed the circuit courts judgment. Batalona then filed an application for writ of certiorari to this court, which was denied in 2006.3
In 2010, Batalona filed a Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 40 petition.4 Batalona asserted that his sentence...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP