State v. Rosa

• Decision Date: 27 November 2019
• Docket Number: NO. CAAP-18-0000494,CAAP-18-0000494
• Citation: 453 P.3d 835 (Table)
• Parties: STATE of Hawai‘i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Austin H. ROSA, Defendant-Appellant
• Court: Hawaii Court of Appeals

453 P.3d 835 (Table)

STATE of Hawai‘i, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Austin H. ROSA, Defendant-Appellant

NO. CAAP-18-0000494

Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawai‘i.

November 27, 2019.

On the briefs:

Rosa Flores, (Greg Ryan and Associates), for Defendant-Appellant, (Austin H. Rosa, Defendant-Appellant, pro se, filing Supplemental Amended Opening Brief)

Tracy Murakami, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, County of Kauai, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

(By: Fujise, Presiding Judge, Leonard and Hiraoka, JJ.)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

Defendant-Appellant Austin H. Rosa (Rosa ) appeals from the May 17, 2018 Judgment of Conviction and Sentence (Judgment ) entered against him in the Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit (Circuit Court ).¹

On February 7, 2018, Rosa pled guilty to one count of Resisting an Order to Stop a Motor Vehicle in the First Degree (Resisting Order to Stop First ) in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS ) § 710-102 6.9(1) (Supp. 2018).² Rosa was sentenced to a five-year term of imprisonment.

In his Opening Brief, Rosa raises a single point of error, contending that his constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated because the trial court failed to colloquy Rosa to determine whether he was intelligently, knowingly, and voluntarily waiving his right to a speedy trial by agreeing to the withdrawal of his attorney and the continuance of his trial date.

We note that, although Rosa has been represented by counsel throughout this appellate proceeding, two weeks after the filing of the Opening Brief, Rosa (personally) filed a handwritten document entitled Supplemental Amended Opening Brief of Defendant-Appellant (Supplemental Brief ), in which he sought to raise additional points of error, as well as to supplement arguments made in what Rosa refers to as the "Rosa Flores brief." Rosa Flores, Esq. is Rosa's appellate counsel in this case. No motion has been filed for withdrawal and/or substitution of counsel, for leave to proceed as a self-represented party, or to allow the filing of a supplemental brief. The filing of the Supplemental Brief was not authorized under the Hawai‘i Rules of Appellate Procedure. Under these circumstances, this court will not address the merits of additional arguments stated in the Supplemental Brief. Our ruling on the Supplemental Brief is without prejudice to Rosa raising these arguments in a petition for post-conviction relief, which may be filed pursuant to Rule 40 of the Hawai‘i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP ). These arguments shall not be considered waived pursuant to HRPP Rule 40(a)(3).

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we resolve Rosa's point of error as follows:

Rosa contends that the Circuit Court should have engaged in a colloquy with him to ensure that "he was aware that he...