Villanueva v. State, 091316 HIICA, CAAP-15-0000945

Docket Nº:CAAP-15-0000945
Party Name:GERALD VILLANUEVA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF HAWAI'I, Respondent-Appellee
Attorney:Gerald Villanueva Petitioner-Appellant. Renee Ishikawa DeLizo Deputy Prosecuting Attorney County of Maui for Respondent-Appellee.
Judge Panel:Nakamura, Chief Judge, and Foley and Leonard, JJ.
Case Date:September 13, 2016
 
FREE EXCERPT

GERALD VILLANUEVA, Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

STATE OF HAWAI'I, Respondent-Appellee

No. CAAP-15-0000945

Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawaii

September 13, 2016

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI 'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT (S.P.P. NO. 15-1-0013(2) (CR. NO. 96-0078(2))

Gerald Villanueva Petitioner-Appellant.

Renee Ishikawa DeLizo Deputy Prosecuting Attorney County of Maui for Respondent-Appellee.

Nakamura, Chief Judge, and Foley and Leonard, JJ.

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

This appeal arises out of the seventh petition for post-conviction relief filed by Petitioner-Appellant Gerald Villanueva (Villanueva). On October 14, 2015, Villanueva filed a pleading entitled "Motion for a Judicial Review Pursuant to HRS. 91-94." The Circuit Court of the Second Circuit (Circuit Court) ordered that this pleading be treated and filed as a nonconforming petition under Hawai'i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 40 (2006). On November 19, 2015, the Circuit Court1denied Villanueva's nonconforming petition without a hearing and filed its "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Judgment Denying Petitioner's Non-Conforming HRPP Rule 40 Petition to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Judgment or to Release Petitioner from Custody" (Order Denying Seventh Petition). The Circuit Court ruled that Villanueva's claims "have no colorable basis, have previously been raised and ruled upon, are patently frivolous, or are without a trace of support in the record or from other evidence submitted by [Villanueva]."

Villanueva appeals from the Order Denying Seventh Petition. While Villanueva's arguments for relief are difficult to understand, it appears that they arise out of the Hawai'i Supreme Court's reference to his conviction on Count 2 as being for "[possession" or use of a firearm in the commission of a separate felony instead of for "carrying" or use of a firearm in the commission of a separate felony in its 1998 decision on his direct appeal. The supreme court...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP