State v. Puck
| Decision Date | 23 November 2021 |
| Docket Number | NO. CAAP-18-0000779,NO. CAAP-18-0000778,CAAP-18-0000778 |
| Citation | 150 Hawai‘i 220,499 P.3d 420 (Table) |
| Parties | STATE of Hawai‘i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hardy AH PUCK, Defendant-Appellant and State of Hawai‘i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hardy Ah Puck, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Hawaii Court of Appeals |
On the briefs:
John F. Parker (Law Office of John F. Parker, LLC) for Defendant-Appellant.
Gerald K. Enriques Deputy Prosecuting Attorney County of Maui for Plaintiff-Appellee.
(
In these consolidated appeals, Defendant-Appellant Hardy Ah Puck (Ah Puck ) appeals from the Judgment; Conviction and Sentence; Notice of Entry (Judgment ), entered on March 1, 2018, in the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit (Circuit Court ) in Case Nos. 2CPC-17-0000884 (2017 Case ) and 2CPC-18-0000077 (2018 Case ).1 After pleading no contest pursuant to a plea agreement with Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawai‘i (State ), Ah Puck was convicted of: (1) Promoting a Detrimental Drug in the Second Degree, in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS ) § 712-1248(1)(d) (2014),2 in the 2017 Case; and (2) Promoting a Harmful Drug in the Fourth Degree, in violation of HRS § 712-1246.5 (2014),3 in the 2018 Case.
Ah Puck raises a single point of error on appeal, contending that the Circuit Court plainly erred in finding that Ah Puck's no contest pleas were made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.
After reviewing the record on appeal and the relevant legal authorities, and giving due consideration to the issues raised and the arguments advanced by the parties, we resolve Ah Puck's point of error as follows:
I. Background
On November 14, 2017, the State charged Ah Puck with four counts in the 2017 Case: (1) Count 1, promoting a controlled substance in, on, or near schools, school vehicles, public parks, or public housing projects or complexes, in violation of HRS § 712-1249.6(1)(b) (2014); (2) Count 2, promoting a detrimental drug in the second degree, in violation of HRS § 712-1248(1)(d) ; (3) Count 3, promoting a detrimental drug in the third degree, in violation of HRS § 712-1249(1) (2014); and (4) Count 4, prohibited acts related to drug paraphernalia, in violation of HRS § 329-43.5(a) (Supp. 2017).
On February 2, 2018, the State charged Ah Puck with three counts in the 2018 Case: (1) Count 1, promoting a controlled substance in, on, or near schools, school vehicles, public parks, or public housing projects or complexes, in violation of HRS § 712-1249.6(1)(b) ; (2) Count 2, promoting a dangerous drug in the third degree, in violation of HRS § 712-1243(1) (2014); and (3) Count 3, prohibited acts related to drug paraphernalia, in violation of HRS § 329-43.5(a).
On March 1, 2018, following one day of jury selection and two days of trial in the 2017 case, Ah Puck and the State reached a plea agreement. Pursuant to the agreement, Ah Puck entered no contest pleas to: (1) Count 2 in the 2017 Case; and (2) an amended charge of promoting a harmful drug in the fourth degree in Count 2 in the 2018 Case. Trial had not yet begun in the 2018 Case. The same day, the Circuit Court held a change-of-plea hearing, accepted Ah Puck's no contest pleas, and entered the Judgment in both cases.
II. Discussion
Ah Puck contends that the Circuit Court failed to conduct an adequate colloquy to ensure that the waiver of his rights to trial and to appeal any matters that occurred prior to his change of plea were made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Ah Puck argues that during the Circuit Court's plea colloquy, Ah Puck indicated having received treatment for mental illness or emotional disturbance, but the Circuit Court failed to follow up regarding the extent of the treatment and instead accepted Ah Puck's brief responses to the court's questions.
A trial judge is constitutionally required to ensure that a guilty or no contest plea is made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. See State v. Krstoth, 138 Hawai‘i 268, 273, 378 P.3d 984, 989 (2016) (citing State v. Solomon, 107 Hawai‘i 117, 127, 111 P.3d 12, 22 (2005) ); State v. Hernandez, 143 Hawai‘i 501, 515, 431 P.3d 1274, 1288 (2018).
Krstoth, 138 Hawai‘i at 273, 378 P.3d at 989 ; see Hernandez, 143 Hawai‘i at 513, 515, 431 P.3d at 1286, 1288.
The validity of a waiver of a fundamental right is reviewed under the totality of the facts and circumstances of the particular case. State v. Friedman, 93 Hawai‘i 63, 69, 996 P.2d 268, 274 (2000) ; see State v. Ernes, 147 Hawai‘i 316, 323, 465 P.3d 763, 770 (2020) (). In this context, the presence of a "salient fact" in the record can create the need for a more extensive colloquy to ensure the defendant's understanding. Friedman, 93 Hawai‘i at 69-70, 996 P.2d at 274-75. Salient facts include a language barrier or mental illness. See Krstoth, 138 Hawai‘i at 276, 378 P.3d at 992 ; State v. Han, 130 Hawai‘i 83, 92, 306 P.3d 128, 137 (2013).
In State v. Martin, 146 Hawai‘i 365, 463 P.3d 1022 (2020), the Hawai‘i Supreme Court addressed whether the trial court's colloquy regarding the defendant's right to testify was deficient. Id. at 378, 463 P.3d at 1035. The defendant argued that the colloquy was not a "true colloquy" because the trial court recited a "litany of rights" without obtaining a response as to the defendant's understanding of the fundamental principles pertaining to his rights, and because evidence of the defendant's mental illness was a salient fact in the case. Id. at 379, 463 P.3d at 1036. There, the trial court had conducted the following colloquy prior to the close of the defendant's case:
The supreme court held that under the totality of circumstances, the trial court's colloquy provided "an objective basis for finding that [the defendant] knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily gave up" his right to testify. Id. at 380, 463 P.3d at 1037. With respect to the defendant's alleged mental illness, the supreme court noted that in addition to following the requirements of applicable case law, the trial court had "asked various questions with regard to the clarity of [the defendant's] state of mind at the time of the colloquy." Id.
Similarly, here, the Circuit Court's colloquy with Ah Puck included various questions to ensure that Ah Puck's mind was clear when he entered his no contest plea:
To continue reading
Request your trial