429 P.3d 605 (Hawaii App. 2018), CAAP-15-0000387, State v. Tui
|Citation:||429 P.3d 605, 143 Hawaii 283|
|Party Name:||STATE of Hawaii, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph TUI, Jr., Defendant-Appellee, and Director of Health, Department of Health, State of Hawaii, Real Party-in-Interest-Appellant.|
|Attorney:||Debbie L. Tanakaya, for Real Party-in-Interest-Appellant. Nelson W.S. Goo, for Defendant-Appellee.|
|Judge Panel:||By: Fujise, Presiding Judge, Reifurth and Chan, JJ.|
|Case Date:||October 31, 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This decision has been designated as "Unpublished disposition."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 FIRST CIRCUIT (CR. NOS. 13-1-0371 AND 13-1-0556)
On the briefs:
Debbie L. Tanakaya, for Real Party-in-Interest-Appellant.
Nelson W.S. Goo, for Defendant-Appellee.
By: Fujise, Presiding Judge, Reifurth and Chan, JJ.
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
This case is before us on remand from the Hawaii Supreme Court. State v. Tui, 138 Hawaii 462, 382 P.3d 274 (2016). This appeal arises out of a dispute regarding whether, under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) chapter 704, custody of a defendant deemed unfit to proceed due to a mental disease or disorder can be transferred from the Director of Health (Director) to the Department of Public Safety (DPS) before a judicial determination that the defendant has regained fitness. The Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit court)1 answered in the negative, and the Director appealed. This court dismissed Defendants appeal from the circuit courts order as moot because custody of the defendant had already been transferred from the Director to the DPS and the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception to the mootness doctrine did not apply. The supreme court vacated this courts November 9, 2015 "Order Dismissing Appeal for Lack of Appellate Jurisdiction" and remanded the case to this court for a determination on the merits.
In its order denying the Directors motion to transfer the defendant to the DPS, the circuit court order held that it "does not have the legal authority to transfer Defendant ... until this Court finds Defendant to presently be fit." Upon appeal, the Director contends that the uncertainty as to Defendants regained fitness to proceed necessitated a determination of whether the defendant was to remain at Hawaii State Hospital (HSH). The Director...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP