State v. Wagner
| Decision Date | 04 May 2017 |
| Docket Number | SCWC-13-0000056 |
| Citation | 394 P.3d 705 |
| Parties | STATE of Hawai'i, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John A. WAGNER, Jr., Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
John A. Wagner, petitioner, pro se.
Mark D. Disher for respondent
1
John A. Wagner, Jr., seeks review of his conviction and sentence for one count of methamphetamine trafficking in the first degree, and two counts of prohibited acts related to drug paraphernalia. The Circuit Court of the Third Circuit2 (circuit court) sentenced Wagner to twenty years' imprisonment on the methamphetamine trafficking charge, and imposed a mandatory minimum term of thirteen years and four months because Wagner had a prior conviction for methamphetamine trafficking. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) affirmed the circuit court's Judgment of Conviction and Sentence, and Wagner sought review in this court.
We conclude that the circuit court incorrectly construed Wagner's prior conviction as an element of the offense. As a result, information about Wagner's prior conviction was submitted to the jury in a stipulation, thus unnecessarily subjecting Wagner to potential prejudice due to the jurors learning of his prior felony conviction. Accordingly, we vacate the ICA's January 26, 2016 judgment on appeal, and remand to the circuit court for a new trial.
This case arises from a police search of Wagner's residence on December 23, 2010, executed pursuant to a search warrant. During the search, the police found 45.3 grams of a "crystalline substance" and drug paraphernalia. That same day, Wagner was arrested for methamphetamine trafficking and possession of drug paraphernalia.
On December 27, 2010, Wagner was initially charged with four counts relating to the events of December 23, 2010. The State filed an Amended Complaint on December 28, 2011, and a Second Amended Complaint on September 4, 2012, alleging three counts.3 In Count I, Wagner was charged with methamphetamine trafficking in the first degree in violation of Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 712-1240.7(1)(a) (Supp. 2006), alleging that Wagner knowingly possessed one ounce or more of methamphetamine "with one prior conviction for Methamphetamine Trafficking." Counts II and III both alleged that Wagner "used, or possessed with intent to use, drug paraphernalia, zip packet(s) and/or scale(s) and/or straw(s), to plant, propagate, cultivate, grow, harvest, manufacture, compound, convert, produce, process, prepare, test, analyze, pack, repack, store, contain, conceal, inject, ingest, inhale, or otherwise introduce into the human body a controlled substance" in violation of HRS § 329-43.5 (Prohibited Acts Related to Drug Paraphernalia).
At jury trial, Wagner stipulated that he had a prior conviction for methamphetamine trafficking. However, the parties further agreed that the jury would not be advised that Wagner's prior conviction was for a methamphetamine trafficking offense, but rather only that it was a felony.
The State's evidence at trial established that when the police arrived at Wagner's residence to execute its search warrant, Wagner and his fiancee, Deshalynn Pea, were on the lanai at the front of the house, and Wagner's mother and other family members were inside the residence. The State's evidence also established that the police found in Wagner's room prescription pill bottles with Wagner's name on them, and Wagner's wallet, which held his University of Hawai'i student identification card, his Visa card, and his social security card. The police also found Pea's wallet on the bed.
Further, the State's evidence established that the "sixteen packets of a white crystalline substance" recovered from Wagner's room tested positive as approximately 45.38 grams, or about 1.6 ounces, of methamphetamine. The State also established that a methamphetamine smoking pipe, several zip packets, and a digital scale and straw, used to weigh and package drugs, were recovered from Wagner's room. Additionally, the State established that the residual contents found within the drug paraphernalia were methamphetamine. The State also established that in Wagner's room, $10,000 in a "drug roll" was recovered from one of Wagner's shirt pockets, $967 was found on Wagner's bed, a notebook with drug slang terms written inside was recovered, and multiple cell phones with phone numbers affixed to the exterior, commonly used to facilitate drug dealings, were recovered.
Just prior to the State resting its case, the court read the stipulated language relating to Wagner's prior conviction to the jury:
A conviction for Count 1 in this matter requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the element that defendant [Wagner] has had one prior conviction for a felony prior to December 23rd, 2010. For purposes of Count 1 in this matter, the parties have stipulated that prior to December 23rd, 2010, [Wagner] was convicted of one felony offense.
The court then further instructed the jury:
Wagner testified in his own defense. Wagner admitted that he had previously used methamphetamine and was familiar with its effects, referring to himself as an "ex-addict." Wagner confirmed that methamphetamine was found in his room, but denied that it was his and stated that he had never seen it in his room before. Wagner further contended that the pipe found in his room did not belong to him.
The following limiting instruction was given to the jury at the end of trial without objection:
On September 13, 2012, the jury found Wagner guilty of all three charges. On September 18, 2012, the State filed a motion to impose a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment, pursuant to HRS § 712-1240.7(3)(a). The State argued that Wagner's previous conviction for methamphetamine trafficking "mandates the imposition of a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of between six years, eight months and thirteen years, four months[.]"
On November 16, 2012, the court held a sentencing hearing. Before any substantive matters were addressed, Wagner orally moved to dismiss his counsel. The court then gave Wagner a copy of the State's motion to impose a mandatory minimum sentence and the presentence report, and recessed to give Wagner time to review the motion and "have a full understanding" of the proceeding.
After the recess,4 the court confirmed that Wagner was ready to proceed, and engaged in a colloquy with Wagner to determine if Wagner understood that he: (1) was at a disadvantage because he was not trained to represent himself; (2) would be subject to a prison sentence of up to thirty years with a mandatory minimum of up to thirteen years; (3) had the constitutional right to be represented by an attorney; and (4) had a right to court-appointed counsel. Wagner responded that he had no questions in general or about the possible sentence he faced.
Wagner stated that his decision to waive his right to an attorney was voluntary, and the court found that he "voluntarily, intelligently, and knowingly" waived his right to be represented by an attorney. The court then discharged Wagner's counsel. When asked if Wagner had any response to the State's motion to impose a mandatory minimum sentence, Wagner stated "[n]o response."5
The court granted the State's motion to impose a mandatory minimum sentence. The court then sentenced Wagner to twenty years' imprisonment for methamphetamine trafficking in the first degree, with a mandatory minimum term of thirteen years and four months; and five years for each count of prohibited acts related to drug paraphernalia, with the sentences running concurrently.
On November 19, 2012, the court filed its Judgment of Conviction and Sentence. On December 12, 2012, Wagner was appointed counsel for purposes of appeal. On January 29, 2013, Wagner filed his notice of appeal.
After Wagner's appointed counsel filed an opening brief at the ICA, his counsel filed a motion to withdraw as Wagner's counsel. The ICA remanded the case to the circuit court, and the circuit court granted the motion to withdraw, but required Wagner's counsel "to remain as standby counsel" to advise Wagner regarding the "practice and procedure of the appellate courts."
Wagner then filed a handwritten pro se opening brief with the ICA, arguing that the circuit court abused its discretion in allowing the introduction of his prior conviction in front of the jury at trial. Wagner argued that he was prejudiced by the introduction of his conviction, and contended that his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Aliwis
...the meaning of [Hawaii Rules of Evidence (HRE)] Rule 401 is reviewed under the right/wrong standard of review." State v. Wagner, 139 Hawai‘i 475, 480, 394 P.3d 705, 710 (2017) (citation and block quote formatting omitted). "Relevant evidence" is "evidence having any tendency to make the exi......
-
State v. Silva
...jury, as the trier of fact, is the sole judge of the credibility of witnesses or the weight of the evidence." State v. Wagner, 139 Hawai‘i 475, 485, 394 P.3d 705, 715 (2017) (citation omitted).II. HRS § 707-711 (2014) provides, in relevant part:(1) A person commits the offense of assault in......
-
State v. Pasion
... ... 586-11(a)(2)(A) that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt ... before an increased penalty could be levied. The State's ... concession is well founded. See Auld , 136 ... Hawai'i at 247, 361 P.3d at 474; see also State v ... Wagner , 139 Hawai'i 475, 480, 394 P.3d 705, 710 ... (2017). Therefore, Pasion's sentence must be vacated, and ... Pasion is entitled to a new or bifurcated sentencing ... proceeding in order ... for a jury to determine whether the additional sentencing ... requirements were ... ...