State v. Kong
Decision Date | 10 December 2013 |
Docket Number | No. SCWC–11–0000393.,SCWC–11–0000393. |
Citation | 315 P.3d 720,131 Hawai'i 94 |
Parties | STATE of Hawai‘i, Respondent/Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Stanley S.L. KONG, Petitioner/Defendant–Appellant. |
Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
Samuel G. MacRoberts, for petitioner.
Renee Ishikawa Delizo, for respondent.
RECKTENWALD, C.J., NAKAYAMA, J., and Circuit Judge AYABE, in place of POLLACK, J., recused, with ACOBA, J., dissenting separately, with whom McKENNA, J., joins.
Stanley S.L. Kong was charged with Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the Second Degree and Prohibited Acts Related to Drug Paraphernalia. He was admitted into the Maui Drug Court program, but subsequently self-terminated from the program. The Circuit Court of the Second Circuit then found Kong guilty as charged, and sentenced him to a ten year indeterminate term of imprisonment and a five year indeterminate term of imprisonment, respectively.1 The circuit court ordered that the terms run consecutively, for a total of 15 years, due to Kong's history of "extensive criminality."
In his application, Kong argues that the circuit court's statement regarding his "extensive criminality" was insufficient to justify his consecutive sentence based on the requirements set forth in State v. Hussein, 122 Hawai‘i 495, 229 P.3d 313 (2010). He also argues that his sentence constitutes plain error because it was based on crimes he did not commit. Finally, Kong argues that the colloquy conducted by the circuit court regarding his self-termination from the Drug Court program was insufficient to establish that he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to a termination hearing.
For the reasons set forth below, we reject each of Kong's arguments. We affirm the judgment of the Intermediate Court of Appeals, which affirmed the circuit court's judgment of conviction and sentence.
The following factual background is taken from the record on appeal.
Kong was charged with Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the Second Degree in violation of Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 712–1242,2 and Prohibited Acts Related to Drug Paraphernalia in violation of HRS § 329–43.5.3
Kong subsequently petitioned for admission into the Maui Drug Court program. Kong signed a petition for admission, in which he waived his right to a trial, confirmed his understanding that the charges against him would be dismissed if he successfully completed the program, and confirmed his understanding that he would proceed to a stipulated facts trial if he was unsuccessful in the program. He also admitted to the charges against him.
That same day, the circuit court held a hearing, in which it orally informed Kong of the legal rights that he would surrender if he chose to enter the Drug Court program. The circuit court also reviewed the petition with Kong and explained to Kong that he would be terminated from the program if he violated any of the rules set forth in the Drug Court Program Admission Agreement, which Kong also had signed. The circuit court conducted a detailed colloquy with Kong regarding the rights he was waiving by agreeing to enter the program, including his right to a trial on the charges and the rights associated with a public trial. The circuit court confirmed that Kong admitted to the charges and wanted to proceed. The circuit court found that Kong voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his rights as indicated in the petition, and admitted Kong into the program.
Kong subsequently attended numerous status hearings over a period of approximately six months. However, at a January 26, 2011 status hearing,4 Kong's counsel, a Deputy Public Defender (DPD) indicated her understanding that the Drug Court program was recommending that Kong be terminated from the program. The DPD stated that Kong instead wanted to self-terminate from the program. Kong's Drug Court treatment team confirmed that Kong had failed to appear for a urinalysis, treatment group, and scheduled status hearing, and recommended that the court set a termination hearing. The circuit court addressed Kong:
Kong acknowledged that he understood what the circuit court explained. The circuit court also explained to Kong the consequences of termination:
And, now, at a termination hearing, if you are terminated, you are a Track II participant, so what would happen is your—your case would proceed to what's called a stipulated facts trial, in other words, where the facts are agreed on. So if you get past the point of termination, for example, if you self-terminate, for example, or if it's determined that you should be terminated, then the stipulated facts trial is basically a very short trial. Because essentially what you will have done already is admitted to all of the parts of the charge. So that's presented and the trial doesn't even last a minute and you are found guilty as charged. You understand that?
Kong again acknowledged that he understood what the circuit court explained. The circuit court then stated, "And the reason I'm asking you that question is I want to make sure you understand ... what consequences flow from the decision to self-terminate." (Emphasis added). The circuit court again asked Kong if he understood the consequences of a decision to self-terminate from the Drug Court program, and Kong responded, The circuit court then explained:
Okay. So, basically there's no hearing. You give up the right to a termination hearing, number one, if you self-terminate; number 2, you move onto a stipulated facts trial where it's almost virtually certain, unless your attorney files any constitutionally based motions on your behalf, it's virtually certain that you will be found guilty as charged. And if the motions are filed, if there are any motions that could be filed, then those are heard. But if those are not successful, then that leads to a stipulated facts trial and that would ... essentially result in a finding of guilty. Do you understand all of that?
Kong responded, Kong then stated, "I want to self-terminate," but indicated that "just for the record" that The DPD stated:
Kong then stated that he "wanted to state [the possible conflict] on the record, and then still proceed with the termination." The circuit court was hesitant to proceed with termination in light of Kong's desire to preserve for appeal the issue of a possible conflict of interest. Accordingly, the circuit court set a hearing for a motion to withdraw counsel for February 3, 2011, and a termination hearing for March 7, 2011.
Kong ultimately did not file a motion for withdrawal and substitution of counsel pertaining to any alleged conflict of interest in relation to the circuit court proceedings. At the February 3, 2011 hearing,5 the issue of withdrawal of counsel was not addressed. Instead, the following exchange occurred at the beginning of the hearing:
The circuit court determined that Kong was guilty as charged on all counts.
A...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Long
...under HRS § 706-606(2). However, "[a] sentencing judge generally has broad discretion in imposing a sentence." State v. Kong, 131 Hawai‘i 94, 101, 315 P.3d 720, 727 (2013) (quoting State v. Rivera, 106 Hawai‘i 146, 154, 102 P.3d 1044, 1052 (2004) ).The Circuit Court specifically stated that......
-
State v. Pedro
...of reason or disregarded rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant. State v. Kong, 131 Hawai‘i 94, 101, 315 P.3d 720, 727 (2013) (quoting State v. Rivera, 106 Hawai‘i 146, 154–55, 102 P.3d 1044, 1052–53 (2004), overruled on other grounds by Stat......
-
State v. Medeiros, SCWC-17-0000829
...system—that a party must look to his or her counsel for protection and bear the cost of counsel's mistakes." State v. Kong, 131 Hawai‘i 94, 101, 315 P.3d 720, 727 (2013) (quoting State v. Nichols, 111 Hawai‘i 327, 335, 141 P.3d 974, 982 (2006) (internal citation omitted) (emphasis added). S......
-
State v. Vacchelli
...the substantial detriment to the litigant.State v. Henley, 136 Hawai‘i 471, 478, 363 P.3d 319, 326 (2015) (quoting State v. Kona, 131 Hawai‘i 94, 101, 315 P.3d 720, 727 (2013) ). III. DISCUSSION A. Admission of EvidenceBrandon contends the circuit court erred in admitting “the mug shot in a......