State v. Pedro
| Decision Date | 04 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | SCWC-19-0000439 |
| Citation | 488 P.3d 1235,149 Hawai‘i 256 |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Hawai‘i, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Theo PEDRO, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant. |
Shawn A. Luiz, Honolulu, for petitioner
Richard B. Rost, for respondent
Theo Pedro ("Pedro") pleaded no contest to four counts of sexual assault in the second degree. Before sentencing, Pedro moved to withdraw his pleas. He said he was innocent. He wanted a trial. The Circuit Court of the Second Circuit (the "circuit court," "trial court," or "court") denied Pedro's motion. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (the "ICA") affirmed the circuit court's decision and we granted Pedro's application for certiorari.
Consistent with our "liberal approach" to deciding motions for plea withdrawal before sentencing, see State v. Jim, 58 Haw. 574, 576, 574 P.2d 521, 522-23 (1978), we conclude that Pedro presented a "fair and just reason" for the withdrawal of his pleas. The trial court erred in denying Pedro's motion. Accordingly, we vacate the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence and remand this case to the circuit court.
A June 2018 indictment charged Pedro with four counts of sexual assault in the first degree, attempted sexual assault in the first degree, sexual assault in the fourth degree, and kidnapping. Count 1 alleged:
That on or about the 24th day of June, 2018, in the County of Maui, State of Hawai‘i, THEO PEDRO did knowingly subject another person to an act of sexual penetration by strong compulsion, to wit, by placing his finger into her genital opening, thereby committing the offense of Sexual Assault in the First Degree in violation of Section 707-730(1)(a) of the Hawai‘i Revised Statutes.1
The Family Court of the Second Circuit arraigned Pedro on July 2, 2018.2 Pedro appeared in custody with a deputy public defender and court-appointed Marshallese interpreter. He said he spoke some English and had been in the United States since 2013. Pedro's attorney waived reading of the indictment and entered not guilty pleas for Pedro.3 The court scheduled a September trial.
Defense counsel twice orally moved to continue the trial. The court scheduled a February 25, 2019 trial. Then the defense moved to compel discovery, seeking information purportedly "material to the preparation of the defense" from the Maui Police Department, the Children's Justice Center, and the Maui Department of the Prosecuting Attorney.
At the January 7, 2019 hearing on the motion to compel discovery, Pedro's counsel announced that the parties had reached a plea agreement: Pedro would plead no contest to amended charges of sexual assault in the second degree in counts 1-4 and the State would dismiss counts 5-7 (attempted sexual assault in the first degree, kidnapping, and sexual assault in the fourth degree). The plea agreement's sentencing disposition permitted the State to argue for, at most, concurrent ten-year terms of imprisonment. Pedro could argue for probation. The trial court was not bound to follow the plea agreement. It could ignore its terms.4
Pedro's decision to accept the plea agreement was unexpected, anticipated by neither defense counsel, nor the prosecutor, nor the court before January 7, 2019. Completion and review of "Form K," the Hawai‘i Rules of Penal Procedure ("HRPP") standard change of plea document, happened shortly before Pedro entered the courtroom. Defense counsel represented that, with the interpreter's assistance, he and Pedro had reviewed the form, and a September 21, 2018 letter from the deputy prosecuting attorney detailing the proposed plea agreement. Pedro had signed the form.
In court, defense counsel recited the plea agreement's terms. The court asked Pedro whether he understood the terms. Pedro replied, "Yes, your Honor." The court advised: A plea colloquy ensued. Pedro addressed the court both in English and in Marshallese through the interpreter. Pedro stated he was 33 years old and attended school "up until the ninth grade." He felt clear minded.
The trial court's plea colloquy entailed reading each paragraph of Form K, the change of plea document, and asking Pedro whether the statement was true.
The court continued reciting the plea form's numbered paragraphs. It asked Pedro to confirm his agreement with the form's statements. Pedro responded to each question with "Yes, your Honor" or a slight variation.
The court reviewed the plea agreement's terms with Pedro.5 Pedro said he understood the agreement. Paragraph 8 of the change of plea form advised: "I know that the court is not required to follow any deal or agreement between the Government and me." The court made a sentencing inclination. It told Pedro, "if the Court were to grant prison or, um, order prison, that the Court would not exceed the State's recommendation with concurrent sentencing."
Before asking for Pedro's plea, the court summarized paragraph 11 of the change of plea form: The court asked Pedro whether these statements were true. Pedro replied: "Yes, your Honor."
Pedro then entered no contest pleas to sexual assault in the second degree in counts 1-4. Defense counsel stipulated "for purposes of the no contest plea and the no contest plea alone" to a factual basis supporting Pedro's pleas.
The court accepted Pedro's pleas. It concluded Pedro voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently entered his pleas. Pedro signed the plea form, acknowledging "the Judge questioned me personally in open court to make sure that I knew what I was doing in pleading guilty or no contest and understood this form before I signed it." The court found Pedro guilty of four counts of sexual assault in the second degree.
On March 3, 2019, defense counsel filed a Notice of Disclosure of Discovery Materials. The Notice informed the State that counsel intended to share discovery materials with Pedro under HRPP Rule 16(e)(3).6 That rule states that an:
attorney may provide the defendant with a copy of any discovery material obtained if the attorney notifies the prosecutor in writing and files a copy of such intention with the court, and the prosecutor does not file a motion for protective order within 10 days of the receipt of the notice.
The court filed a stipulation and order regarding custody of discovery on March 14, 2019.7 The record does not indicate when defense counsel told Pedro of his right under HRPP Rule 16(e)(3) to possess the investigative reports in his case. The record also reveals neither when Pedro requested his discovery materials from defense counsel, nor when defense counsel provided Pedro the materials.
Also on March 14, 2019, defense counsel moved to withdraw as counsel. A two-paragraph declaration of counsel was all that supported the motion:
The circuit court scheduled the hearing on the motion to withdraw as counsel on Pedro's sentencing date, March 29, 2019. A presentence report was filed March 21, 2019. On March 29 the court continued the hearing on the motion to withdraw as counsel.8
On April 4, 2019, respective counsel and Pedro appeared, along with a court interpreter. Defense counsel revealed he had "another conversation" with Pedro "about his options and what he wishes to do." Defense counsel then disclosed the basis for his motion to withdraw as Pedro's counsel: Pedro wanted new counsel appointed to assist him with withdrawal of his pleas. Counsel stated that it was his "understanding that [Pedro] seeks to withdraw his no contest plea." Counsel continued: "given what was discussed, I would ask that the pending motion to withdraw as counsel be granted and that a substitute counsel can be appointed."
The trial court confirmed Pedro's desire to start the case "all over again" with new counsel. It asked him why he wanted new counsel. Pedro explained through the interpreter: "[M]y question is to have a new person come help me because I only worked a little bit of time with this lawyer." He told the court he needed a new lawyer to "[e]xplain to me and help me with this case" and "[e]xplain to me about everything because I did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Tuimalealiifano
...plea withdrawals, but it does not provide a standard for defendants withdrawing pleas prior to sentencing.15 State v. Pedro, 149 Hawai'i 256, ––––, 488 P.3d 1235, 1249 (2021). Instead, the Hawai'i Supreme Court has articulated the standard, providing that although "[a] defendant does not ha......
-
State v. Puck
...clear. I have not taken any medication, alcohol, or illegal drugs within the last 48 hours. I am not sick." See State v. Pedro, 149 Hawai‘i 256, ––––, 488 P.3d 1235, 1251 (2021) (though a signed Form K does not by itself render a plea constitutionally valid, it "does tend to show a plea was......
-
State v. Puck, CAAP-18-0000778
...marched through each paragraph of Form K[, ]" often elaborating to ensure that Ah Puck understood the consequences of his pleas. Id. The court the important constitutional rights that Ah Puck was waiving, including the right to trial by jury in each of his two cases, the rights to testify a......
-
State v. Chun
...521 (1978) ] favors allowing pre-sentence defendants to reclaim their constitutional rights and go to trial." State v. Pedro, 149 Hawai‘i 256, 271, 488 P.3d 1235, 1250 (2021).Thus, we must "examine the totality of the circumstances to determine whether there was any fair and just reason for......