429 P.3d 1230 (Hawaii App. 2018), CAAP-16-0000810, State v. Means
|Citation:||429 P.3d 1230, 143 Hawaii 301|
|Party Name:||STATE of Hawaii, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark MEANS, also known as Mark Edward Means, Defendant-Appellant|
|Attorney:||Randall K. Hironaka, (Miyoshi & Hironaka, LLLC), Honolulu, for Defendant-Appellant. Peter A. Hanano, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Country of Maui, for Plaintiff-Appellee.|
|Judge Panel:||By: Ginoza, C.J., and Fujise and Reifurth, JJ.|
|Case Date:||November 08, 2018|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Hawai'i, Intermediate|
This decision has been designated as "Unpublished disposition." in the Pacific Reporter. See HI R RAP RULE 35
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT (CR. NO. 15-1-0811)
On the briefs:
Randall K. Hironaka, (Miyoshi & Hironaka, LLLC), Honolulu, for Defendant-Appellant.
Peter A. Hanano, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Country of Maui, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
By: Ginoza, C.J., and Fujise and Reifurth, JJ.
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
Defendant-Appellant Mark Means appeals from the October 21, 2016 Judgment of Conviction and Sentence; Notice of Entry ("Judgment") entered by the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit ("Circuit Court").
2 Means was convicted by a jury of Theft in the Second Degree, in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes ("HRS") section 708-831(1)(b) (2014),3 and subsequently sentenced as a repeat offender to a mandatory minimum of five years incarceration without the possibility of parole in addition to other fees and fines.
On appeal, Means alleges that (1) he was deprived of his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel; (2) the Circuit Court abused its discretion in allowing Sears Asset Protection Manager Arthur Wake to testify to the value of the subject merchandise and in receiving the printed Sears receipt ("Receipt") into evidence; and (3) the Circuit Court erred in sentencing Means as a repeat offender where the State failed to prove Means prior convictions to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt in violation of State v. Auld, 136 Hawaii 244, 361 P.3d 471 (2015).
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties, as well as the relevant statutory and case law, we affirm.
(1) In his first point of error, Means alleges that his defense counsel was constitutionally ineffective because counsels decision to adduce evidence that Means was homeless and unemployed had no relevance to the defense that Means did not possess the requisite state of mind as to the value of the stolen merchandise, and was highly prejudicial, resulting in the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense.
A defendant who raises a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel bears the burden of proving "1) that there were specific errors or omissions reflecting counsels lack of skill, judgment, or diligence; and 2) that such errors or omissions resulted in either the...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP