State v. Man
| Decision Date | 19 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | NO. CAAP-19-0000857,CAAP-19-0000857 |
| Citation | 150 Hawai‘i 145,497 P.3d 1093 |
| Parties | STATE of Hawai‘i, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert MAN, also known as Robert Alop, Defendant-Appellee |
| Court | Hawaii Court of Appeals |
On the briefs:
Stephen K. Tsushima, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, City & County of Honolulu, for Plaintiff-Appellant
R. Patrick McPherson, Honolulu, for Defendant-Appellee
On June 2, 2018, Defendant-Appellee Robert Man, also known as Robert Alop (Man ), was issued a citation for the offenses of Accidents Involving Damage to Vehicle or Property, in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS ) § 291C-13 (Supp. 2017),1 and No Motor Vehicle Insurance, in violation of HRS § 431:10C-104 (2005) (Citation ). Several days later, Plaintiff-Appellant State of Hawai‘i (State ) filed the Citation in the District Court of the First Circuit, Wahiawa Division (District Court ), initiating a citation proceeding (Citation Proceeding ). Over the next twelve weeks, both charges identified in the Citation were dismissed on the State's motion, prior to any in-court oral recitation of the charges. The charge of Accidents Involving Damage to Vehicle or Property was dismissed without prejudice.
On May 6, 2019, Man was charged by complaint with Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of an Intoxicant (OVUII ), in violation of HRS § 291E-61(a)(1) (Supp. 2017),2 and Accidents Involving Damage to Vehicle or Property, in connection with the same incident that had led to the Citation. Trial was set for September 26, 2019. Before trial began, Man filed a motion to dismiss the case on the ground that trial had not commenced within six months of "the filing of the charge" — which Man asserted was the issuance of the Citation — in violation of Hawai‘i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP ) Rule 483 (Motion to Dismiss ). The District Court granted the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice.
The State appeals from the Notice of Entry of Judgment and/or Order and Plea/Judgment (Judgment ), filed on November 21, 2019, in the District Court.4 The State contends that the District Court: (1) erred in granting Man's Motion to Dismiss, because HRPP Rule 48 was not violated; and (2) abused its discretion in dismissing the case with prejudice.
We hold that the filing of the Citation in the District Court constituted "the filing of the charge" for purposes of starting the HRPP Rule 48 clock. Because trial did not commence within 180-days of the filing of the Citation,5 as properly computed under HRPP Rule 48, the District Court did not err in granting the Motion to Dismiss. We also conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the two pending charges – OVUII and Accidents Involving Damage to Vehicle or Property – with prejudice. Accordingly, we affirm the Judgment.
On June 2, 2018, Man was issued Citation No. 1DTC-18-064625, identified above as the Citation, in lieu of arrest for the offenses of Accidents Involving Damage to Vehicle or Property (Citation Count 1 ) and No Motor Vehicle Insurance (Citation Count 2 ). The Citation stemmed from an incident in which Man, as the purported driver of a vehicle involved in an accident that resulted in damage to another vehicle or other property, allegedly left the scene of the accident. The Citation, which was signed by the complaining officer, included a "complaint" that identified the "law(s) violated & traffic crimes committed" and a "summons" that instructed Man to appear before the District Court on July 5, 2018 "to answer the charge(s)."
On June 7, 2018, the State filed the Citation in the District Court, initiating proceeding No. 1DTC-18-064625, identified above as the Citation Proceeding.
At Man's arraignment and plea hearing on July 5, 2018, Man was not present and was represented by counsel. The State orally moved to continue the hearing "for further investigation as to [Citation] Count 1." The District Court granted the State's oral motion to continue and set Man's arraignment and plea as to Citation Count 1 for August 30, 2018. The State orally moved for nolle prosequi (voluntary dismissal) of Citation Count 2, for "[v]alid proof of insurance shown." The District Court granted the State's oral motion and dismissed Citation Count 2.
At Man's continued arraignment and plea hearing on August 30, 2018, Man was not present and was represented by counsel. The State orally moved for nolle prosequi of Citation Count 1. The District Court granted the State's oral motion and dismissed Citation Count 1 without prejudice, as reflected in the August 30, 2018 Notice of Entry of Judgment and/or Order and Plea/Judgment, entered in the Citation Proceeding.
On May 6, 2019, Man was charged by complaint with OVUII and Accidents Involving Damage to Vehicle or Property (Complaint ), in connection with the incident that occurred on June 2, 2018. On July 29, 2019, Man was served with a copy of the Complaint and a Penal Summons, which set Man's court date for August 15, 2019.
At Man's August 15, 2019 arraignment and plea hearing, Man's counsel waived reading of the charges, entered a not guilty plea on behalf of Man, and requested that the matter be set for trial "in normal course on a Thursday." The District Court set trial for September 26, 2019.
On September 26, 2019, defense counsel stated that the defense was attempting to locate a video related to the June 2, 2018 incident and would be filing a motion to compel. Defense counsel also stated that the defense believed there was an HRPP Rule 48 violation in the case and requested a continuance for an opportunity to brief the issue and file the motion to compel. The State objected to the continuance, indicating that it was ready to proceed to trial. The District Court granted the defense's request for a continuance and set the matter for status or hearing on the defense's motions on November 14, 2019.
On October 15, 2019, Man filed the Motion to Dismiss. Man argued that 90 days – from June 2, 2018, when the Citation was issued, to August 30, 2018, when Citation Count 1 was dismissed – were chargeable to the State for Rule 48 purposes.6 Man further argued that an additional 143 days – from May 6, 2019, when the Complaint was filed, to September 26, 2019, when trial was set to begin – were also chargeable to the State for Rule 48 purposes. Thus, Man contended, 233 days elapsed prior to trial, in violation of HRPP Rule 48's 180-day limit.
On October 18, 2019, the State filed its memorandum in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. The State stipulated to the timeline of events set out by Man, but maintained that HRPP Rule 48 had not been violated. Specifically, the State argued that: (1) the issuance of the Citation did not constitute "the filing of the charge," HRPP Rule 48(b)(1), for purposes of starting the Rule 48 clock; (2) "the filing of the charge was not perfected unless and until the defendant both received a citation and there was an in[-]court ‘oral recitation of the essential facts constituting the offense charged[,]" HRPP Rule 7(a) (quoted infra ); and (3) because no in-court oral recitation occurred in the Citation Proceeding, the HRPP Rule 48 clock did not start running until May 6, 2019, when the Complaint and Penal Summons were filed.
At the hearing of the Motion to Dismiss on November 21, 2019,7 the District Court took judicial notice of the records in the Citation Proceeding. The District Court noted that the Citation had been filed on June 7, 2018. The court also observed that the language of the Citation stated, among other things, that it: (1) was a "complaint"; (2) "charges you with committing one or more traffic crimes"; and (3) "summons you to appear before the District Court ... to answer to the charge(s) on the date and at the time and location designated in the Summons on the front of this Citation." The District Court concluded that the "[C]itation [was] the charge ... given to the defendant," and "the filing of the charge occurred on June 2nd, 2018, when Mr. Man was issued this [C]itation and summoned to appear in court[,]" thus triggering the HRPP Rule 48 clock. The District Court adopted Man's argument that 233 days had elapsed for purposes of HRPP Rule 48, and found that both charges in the Complaint were based on the same conduct or arose from the same episode. The District Court therefore granted the Motion to Dismiss. The court further decided to dismiss the charges with prejudice after considering and stating the effect of the factors identified in State v. Estencion, 63 Haw. 264, 625 P.2d 1040 (1981).
On November 21, 2019, the District Court entered the Judgment, dismissing the charges with prejudice.
The parties do not dispute the District Court's conclusion that the 143-day period from May 6, 2019, when the Complaint was filed, to September 26, 2019, when trial was set to begin, was chargeable to the State for HRPP Rule 48 purposes. The issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred in concluding that the 89-day period (see supra note 6) from June 2, 2018, when the Citation was issued, to August 30, 2018, when Citation Count 1 was dismissed, was chargeable to the State for HRPP Rule 48 purposes.
"HRPP [ Rule] 48 is intended not only ‘to ensure speedy trial for criminal defendants,’ ... but also ‘to relieve congestion in the trial court, to promptly process all cases reaching the courts[,] and to advance the efficiency of the criminal justice process.’ " State v. Choy Foo, 142 Hawai‘i 65, 72, 414 P.3d 117, 124 (2018) (alterations in original) (quoting State v. Hoey, 77 Hawai‘i 17, 29, 881 P.2d 504, 516 (1994) ); see also Hernane, 145 Hawai‘i at 450, 454 P.3d at 391 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial