State v. Shannon
Citation | 151 Hawai‘i 166,509 P.3d 1129 (Table) |
Decision Date | 23 May 2022 |
Docket Number | CAAP-19-0000657 |
Parties | STATE of Hawai‘i, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rian Timothy SHANNON, Defendant-Appellant |
Court | Court of Appeals of Hawai'i |
On the briefs:
Kevin O'Grady, for Defendant-Appellant.
Donn Fudo, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, City and County of Honolulu, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
(
Defendant-Appellant Rian Timothy Shannon appeals from the Second Amended Notice of Entry of Judgment and/or Order and Plea/Judgment (Second Amended Judgment ) entered by the District Court of the First Circuit, ‘Ewa Division on August 27, 2019.1 For the reasons explained below, we vacate the Second Amended Judgment and remand for further proceedings.
After a district court bench trial, Shannon was found guilty of Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of an Intoxicant, in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS ) § 291E-61(a)(1). He appealed, asserting (among other things) that the district court erred by denying his motion to dismiss under Rule 48 of the Hawai‘i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP ). We vacated and remanded for entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law. State v. Shannon, Nos. CAAP-18-0000005, CAAP-18-0000870 (consolidated), 2019 WL 1552055 (Haw. App. Apr. 10, 2019) (Shannon I ).
On remand, the district court entered its "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Denying Defendant's November 29, 2016, Motion to Dismiss for Rule 48 Violation" and the Second Amended Judgment on August 27, 2019. This appeal followed.
Rule 48(b)(1) allows a defendant to move to dismiss the charges against them if trial is not commenced within six months — construed as 180 days, State v. Hutch, 75 Haw. 307, 330, 861 P.2d 11, 23 (1993) — from the date of arrest if bail is set. Id. at 313, 861 P.2d at 22. Rule 48(c) mandates that the court exclude certain time periods from its computation in determining whether the one hundred eighty days have run. Id. at 330-331, 861 P.2d at 23. A trial court's findings of fact in deciding a Rule 48 motion to dismiss are subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review. Id. at 328, 861 P.2d at 22. However, whether those facts fall within one of Rule 48(c)'s exclusionary provisions is a question of law, which is freely reviewable under the right/wrong test. Id. at 329, 861 P.2d at 22.
The State's answering brief concedes that it "cannot in good faith contest [Shannon]'s assertion that ‘[t]he motion[ ] to dismiss for violation of HRPP Rule 48 [was] clearly decided erroneously and the case must be remanded for a dismissal[.]’ " However, "[i]n ‘confession of error’ cases where the prosecution ‘admits’ to error, ... before a conviction is reversed, it is incumbent on the appellate court first to ascertain that the confession of error is supported by the record and well-founded in law and second to determine that such error is properly preserved and prejudicial." State v. Hoang, 93 Hawai‘i 333, 336, 3 P.3d 499, 502 (2000) (cleaned up). The record indicates that the State's concession was well-founded, and the district court erred in denying Shannon's Rule 48 motion to dismiss.
Shannon was arrested and posted bail on April 9, 2016. He was arraigned on May 10, 2016, and trial was set for June 14, 2016. The time from Shannon's arrest to his original trial date was 65 days, not including the one-day arraignment continuance he requested. HRPP Rule 48(c)(3).
Shannon requested a trial continuance from June 14, 2016 to July 12, 2016; this 28-day period is not included in the Rule 48 180-day limit. HRPP Rule 48(c)(3).
Shannon's case was called for trial on July 12, 2016. Shannon challenges the district court's finding of fact nos. 9 and 19:
(emphasis added). It is not clear from the record how the district court calculated the 28-day period; 28 days from July 12, 2016, is August 9, 2016, and the record does not reflect anything happening on August 9, 2016. The period at issue — July 12, 2016 to August 16, 2016, is actually 35 days.
The State's motion for protective order had been filed on May 27, 2016. The first page of the motion lists a hearing date of June 7, 2016. But the district court docket contains no record of the case being called for a hearing on June 7, 2016, or of a June 7, 2016 hearing on a motion for protective order being continued. The transcript of proceedings on July 12, 2016, indicates confusion over the status of the State's motion:
(emphasis added). The State's representation that the Rule 48 deadline would run on November 4, 2016, was accurate; April 9, 2016 until November 4, 2016 — excluding the 29 days of continuance requested by Shannon — is 180 days. The transcript indicates that the district court continued the hearing on the State's motion for protective order, over Shannon's objection , based on the Rule 48 deadline expiring on November 4, 2016. The hearing continued:
To continue reading
Request your trial