State v. Cattaneo

• Decision Date: 24 February 2021
• Docket Number: NO. CAAP-19-0000644,CAAP-19-0000644
• Citation: 481 P.3d 721 (Table)
• Parties: STATE of Hawai‘i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael A. CATTANEO, Defendant-Appellant
• Court: Hawaii Court of Appeals

481 P.3d 721 (Table)

STATE of Hawai‘i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael A. CATTANEO, Defendant-Appellant

NO. CAAP-19-0000644

Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawai‘i.

February 24, 2021.

On the briefs:

Pamela I. Lundquist, for Defendant-Appellant.

Renee Ishikawa Delizo, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, County of Maui, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

(By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Leonard and Nakasone, JJ.)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Defendant-Appellant Michael A. Cattaneo ( Cattaneo ) appeals from a July 16, 2019 Order Denying Cattaneo's [Hawai‘i Rules of Penal Procedure ( HRPP )] Rule 35 Motion for Reduction of Sentence ( Order Denying Motion to Reduce Sentence ) and April 24, 2020 Findings of Fact ( FOFs ) and Conclusions of Law ( COLs ) and Order Denying Motion to Reduce Sentence ( FOFs/COLs & Order ) entered by the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit ( Circuit Court ). ¹

This appeal arises out of two criminal cases brought by Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawai‘i ( State ) against Cattaneo. Cattaneo pleaded no contest to, and was convicted of, one count of Negligent Homicide in the First Degree in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS ) § 707-702.5(1)(b) (2014), ² one count of Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the Third Degree in violation of HRS § 712-1243(1) (2014), ³ and one count of Prohibited Acts Related to Drug Paraphernalia in violation of HRS § 329-43.5(a) (2010). ⁴ Cattaneo was sentenced to an indeterminate ten-year term of imprisonment for Negligent Homicide in the First Degree and indeterminate five-year terms for each of the drug-related convictions, with the five-year terms running concurrently to each other and consecutively to the ten-year term.

Upon conclusion of a direct appeal from the December 4, 2015 Judgment of Conviction and Sentence ( Judgment ), ⁵ discussed briefly below, ⁶ Cattaneo filed an HRPP Rule 35(b) Motion for Reduction of Sentence ( Motion to Reduce Sentence ). After a hearing, the Circuit Court entered the Order Denying Motion to Reduce Sentence.

Cattaneo contends that the Circuit Court erred in denying the Motion to Reduce Sentence by neglecting to consider "the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities" among similarly-situated defendants and failing to "state a sufficient basis for re-imposing consecutive sentences upon resentencing." Cattaneo also contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during the hearing on the Motion to Reduce Sentence. Cattaneo asks this court to vacate the Circuit Court's April 24, 2020 FOFs/COLs & Order and remand this case for a rehearing before a different judge. After reviewing the record on appeal and the relevant legal authorities, and giving due consideration to the issues and the arguments raised by the parties, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

On January 20, 2015, Cattaneo was indicted by a grand jury on two counts of Negligent Homicide in the First Degree, one count of Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of an Intoxicant, and one count of Driving Without Motor Vehicle Insurance. On February 23, 2015, the State filed a Felony Information and Non-Felony Complaint charging Cattaneo with two counts related to dangerous drug possession and paraphernalia, one count of Driving Under the Influence, one count of Driving Without a License, and two counts related to driving without insurance. On August 6, 2015, Cattaneo, represented by the Office of the Public Defender, pleaded no contest to and was convicted of one count of Negligent Homicide in the First Degree in violation of HRS § 707-702.5(1)(b), one count of Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the Third Degree in violation of HRS § 712-1243(1), and one count of Prohibited Acts Related to Drug Paraphernalia in violation of HRS § 329-43.5(a).

In the plea agreement, the parties agreed, inter alia , to seek concurrent sentencing on all counts. The Circuit Court nevertheless sentenced Cattaneo to consecutive terms of imprisonment. In CR. No. 15-1-0023(4), Cattaneo was sentenced to an indeterminate ten-year term of imprisonment for his conviction of Negligent Homicide in the First Degree. In CR. No. 15-1-0022(2), Cattaneo was sentenced to an indeterminate five-year term for each of his convictions for Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the Third Degree and Prohibited Acts Related to Drug Paraphernalia, to run concurrently with each other and consecutively with the ten-year term.

At the sentencing hearing, the Circuit Court solicited statements from, inter alia : Cattaneo, Cattaneo's mother, defense counsel, prosecution counsel, and the friends and family of the deceased. The Circuit Court concluded that Cattaneo "clearly ha[s] no respect for the law" and "no respect for other people", and that Cattaneo's "rule-breaking attitude has cost a man his life." The court then explained its sentencing rationale:

[T]he focus is on how do we change you [(Cattaneo)]? What must the Court do to change you or people who think like you or people who act like you? How do I stop them and you from doing this again?

....

So what I can do is separate you from society long enough for you to gain this insight that you started on and also prevent this from happening to others? [sic]

The time for lessons has passed. This isn't a teaching moment, in my mind. This is a moment for punishment.

....

And so the Court is sentencing the defendant.

Considering the factors under Chapter 706-606, the Court has considered the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of this defendant, especially the history and characteristics of the defendant.

The Court has considered the need for this sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense. And this is of the most serious nature, the taking of one's life.

....

The Court is considering promoting respect for the law, providing just punishment for this offense, the Court is absolutely considering affording adequate deterrence to criminal conduct. And deterrence is not just to the defendant, but to those who would think like this or like him.

The Court is considering protecting the public from further crimes of this defendant and providing the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, other correctional treatment in the most effective manner.

The types of sentences available to the Court have been adequately and appropriately pointed out by both counsel. And the Court does appreciate the argument that both counsels have made.

And the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct. I do not know of the sentences imposed in other courtrooms in either September or any other months of similar cases. I know, however, what this Court sentences in these types of offenses.

And so taken [sic] all that into account, in Criminal Number 15-1-0023, Count Two, the defendant is committed to the custody of the Department of Public Safety for a period of 10 years.

In Criminal Number 15-1-0122, Count One, the defendant is sentenced to a period of five years; Count Two, a period of five years.

Those terms will run concurrently with each other and consecutively to the sentence imposed in 15-1-023, totaling 15 years.

Thereafter, the court entered the Judgment. On January 27, 2016, Cattaneo filed a notice of appeal from the Judgment ( Direct Appeal ), which was docketed in CAAP-16-0000049. The Judgment was affirmed. ⁷

On June 19, 2019, Cattaneo filed the Motion to Reduce Sentence, requesting that the Circuit Court exercise its discretionary power to reduce Cattaneo's sentence to a concurrent sentence on all convictions pursuant to the provisions of HRS §§ 706-606⁸ and 706-668.5. ⁹ The motion stated that "[u]nder the provisions of HRS §§ 706-606 and 706-668.5, a concurrent sentence would be more appropriate and in line with sentencing defendants convicted of Negligent Homicide in the First Degree." Moreover, Cattaneo argued that "other case sentencing(s) support the original term of 10 years concurrent " because those other "Comparable Cases" contain similar, if not "more egregious", fact patterns resulting in convictions for Negligent Homicide in the First Degree along with other felony convictions, but that those same cases, in the same jurisdiction, resulted in concurrent sentencing.

In addition, Cattaneo represented himself as a model inmate who had sought diligently to improve himself in the almost five years he had been incarcerated, proposing that the court "may see Cattaneo has been serving good time and seeking to be as productive as possible in his almost 5 years of [incarceration] by gaining skills and being employed." ¹⁰ Appended to the Motion to Reduce Sentence is a hand-written note ( Note ), apparently authored by Cattaneo, in which he expresses contrition, acknowledges the "terrible decision" he made that led to the taking of another's life, acknowledges that "[t]here is no question that [he] needed to take a long hard look at [his] life and the direction it was headed", and that he "has come a long way from where [he] was, and [he is] sure [he has] a ways to go."

On June 25, 2019, the State filed a Statement of No Position to Cattaneo's Motion to Reduce Sentence.

A hearing on the Motion to Reduce Sentence was held on June 27, 2019, at which Cattaneo was represented by Matthew Kohm ( Kohm ).

Kohm argued that Cattaneo has shown remorse and has adjusted, such that the Court might find that Cattaneo "can be productive or that he deserves a chance." Kohm reiterated points concerning Cattaneo's good conduct and self-improvement in prison. Kohm made arguments regarding mitigating factors related to Cattaneo's conviction for Negligent Homicide, his lack of prior felony convictions, and the prospects for his reintegration in society. With respect to "Comparable Cases," Kohm argued:

Lastly, I would say is I know this Court is very aware of the different sentences that go on in this Court and other Courts. Myself, as a civil attorney, most

...