Warner v. State
| Decision Date | 20 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | SCWC-19-0000034 |
| Parties | LUKE J. WARNER, Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant v. STATE OF HAWAI'I, Respondent/Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-19-0000034; CASE NO. 1PR-18-1-000004).
Luke J. Warner petitioner pro se.
Stephen K. Tsushima for respondent.
OPINION
This appeal arises from the denial without a hearing of Luke Warner's ("Warner") Hawai'i Rules of Penal Procedure ("HRPP") Rule 40 (2006) petition for post-conviction relief. On June 17, 2016, Warner pleaded guilty to multiple drug, theft, and firearm-related offenses. The Circuit Court of the First Circuit ("sentencing court") imposed concurrent prison terms, the longest of which was ten years, and various monetary assessments.
Warner later filed the instant pro se HRPP Rule 40 petition in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit ("circuit court"). He challenged the sentencing court's judgment of conviction and sentence on eight grounds. Warner asked the circuit court to end his sentence, to waive all "fines and fees," and for "compensatory judgments" for civil injustices.
The circuit court ruled Warner had waived some of the grounds in his petition and other grounds that requested compensatory relief were unavailable under HRPP Rule 40. The circuit court denied Warner's petition without a hearing and the Intermediate Court of Appeals ("ICA") affirmed.
We hold (1) there was no error in dismissing grounds one through five of Warner's petition without a hearing based on waiver; but (2) based on the reasons discussed below, Warner raised a colorable claim as to the monetary assessments, which constitute fines; and (3) pursuant to HRPP Rule 40(c) (3), grounds six through eight of Warner's petition raised civil claims required to be transferred for disposition under the civil rules.
We therefore vacate in part the ICA's June 9, 2021 judgment on appeal and the circuit court's February 1, 2019 order denying Warner's petition without a hearing, and remand to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
On August 8, 2012, a grand jury charged Warner with four counts of attempted theft in the second degree, three counts of methamphetamine trafficking in the first degree, and one count each of seven other theft, firearm, and drug-related charges.
At a March 23, 2015 change of plea hearing,[1] the State amended down the methamphetamine trafficking charges to second degree charges. In exchange, Warner pleaded guilty to all charges and agreed to serve concurrent terms of incarceration, with the longest term being ten years. Warner's attorney stated he had "gone over [the guilty plea] with [Warner]," and that he and Warner had signed the plea.
Before accepting the plea, the sentencing court conducted a colloquy with Warner. In summary, the court explained the charges, the maximum terms of imprisonment, and that Warner would give up his right to trial, including his right to jury trial, by pleading guilty. The sentencing court also explained the maximum "authorized fines" that could be imposed pursuant to Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 706-640 for the various counts to which he was to plead guilty. However, the sentencing court did not mention or inform Warner about any other potential monetary assessments. Warner indicated his mind was clear, he had talked to his lawyer about whether he should go to trial, he was satisfied with his lawyer's advice, and no one was forcing or threatening him to plead guilty.
On June 17, 2016, the sentencing court entered its judgment of conviction and sentence. Warner was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment; the longest term was ten years and all terms were to run concurrently with any other sentence.[2] No HRS § 706-640 fines were imposed, but Warner was ordered to pay a $1,420 crime victim compensation fund fee, $1,420 for a drug demand reduction assessment, $7,500 for methamphetamine trafficking restitution and reimbursement, and a fee of up to $500 for a DNA analysis. The sentencing court did not make findings regarding Warner's ability to pay any of these amounts, whether then or in the future.
On February 5, 2018, Warner filed an HRPP Rule 40 petition challenging the sentencing court's judgment on eight grounds:
(1) use of evidence obtained pursuant to an unconstitutional search and seizure; (2) use of evidence obtained pursuant to an unlawful arrest; (3) prosecution's failure to disclose to the defendant evidence that is favorable to the defendant; (4) ineffective assistance of counsel; (5) prosecutorial misconduct; (6) "medical and psych decompensation"; (7) "discrimination and reverse racism"; and (8) "accumulative errors."
Warner indicated he was raising these grounds for the first time because his attorneys were allegedly negligent, committed misconduct, and corrupt. Warner also claimed his health had been poor, he had been preoccupied with other cases, and he had been transferred from several prisons. Warner asked the circuit court to end his sentence, to waive all fines and fees, and for "compensatory judgments" for his civil injustices, medical decompensation, and financial losses.
In response, the State argued Warner waived grounds one through four because he failed to raise them before his guilty plea, and he did not prove extraordinary circumstances justifying his failure to do so. With respect to ground four, ineffective assistance of counsel, the State also argued Warner failed to provide specific errors or omissions that resulted in the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense. The State argued grounds six through eight, which sought compensatory relief, were beyond the scope of HRPP Rule 40. The State asserted Warner therefore failed to state a colorable claim.
On February 1, 2019, the circuit court[3] entered its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order denying the petition without a hearing. The circuit court concluded (1)(a) Warner waived grounds one through four by failing to raise them before pleading guilty; and (b) ground four, ineffective assistance of counsel, was also without merit because Warner did not state specific errors or omissions of counsel resulting in the withdrawal or impairment of a meritorious defense; (2) ground five, prosecutorial misconduct, was without merit because none of the named individuals were employed by the State; and (3) grounds six through eight were without merit because HRPP Rule 40 did not provide for compensatory relief. The circuit court did not address Warner's request to waive the "fines and fees." Warner appealed.
1. Warner's opening brief
In summary, Warner alleged his trial counsel committed misconduct by refusing his instructions to challenge inconsistencies in discovery and by "framing" him in his federal case. Warner claimed HPD officers lied about their first meetings with him, omitted the fact that the first search warrant listed an incorrect address, and lied about a pistol that was sold to Warner. Warner also asked the ICA to suspend multiple Hawai'i judges "for abusing their discretion to deny [Warner] effective counsel[.]"
2. The State's answering brief
The State maintained Warner's petition failed to state a colorable claim of relief, that he waived grounds one through four, and the relief sought in grounds five through eight was beyond the scope of HRPP Rule 40.
3. Summary Disposition Order
On May 21, 2021, the ICA issued its summary disposition order ("SDO") affirming the circuit court's February 1, 2019 order denying the petition without a hearing. Warner v. State, CAAP-19-0000034 (SDO). The ICA identified two arguments in Warner's briefs as related to grounds one through four of his petition: (1) that grand jury witnesses lied; and (2) his trial counsel engaged in various acts of misconduct, including ineffective assistance of counsel. Warner, SDO at 4. The ICA deemed these arguments waived under HRPP Rule 40(a)(3) because Warner could have raised them before his guilty plea and because he had not proven extraordinary circumstances justifying his failure to do so. Warner, SDO at 5, 7. The ICA also determined that, to the extent Warner's petition challenged his guilty plea as not knowingly and intelligently made, Warner had not stated a colorable claim. Warner, SDO at 6.
The ICA also held Warner's briefs presented no discernible argument regarding grounds five through eight of the petition, and any related points of error were waived under Hawai'i Rules of Appellate Procedure ("HRAP") Rule 28(b)(4), (7) (2016).[4]Warner, SDO at 5 n.5. The ICA thus affirmed the circuit court's February 1, 2019 order denying the petition without a hearing. Warner, SDO at 8.
We review orders denying HRPP Rule 40 petitions for postconviction relief de novo. Lewi v. State, 145 Hawai'i 333, 345, 452 P.3d 330, 342 (2019). As a general rule, a hearing should be held on a Rule 40 petition if it states a colorable claim; "the question on appeal of a denial of a Rule 40 petition without a hearing is whether the trial record indicates that Petitioner's application for relief made such a showing of a colorable claim as to require a hearing before the lower court." Lewi, 145 Hawai'i at 345, 452 P.3d at 342 (quoting Dan v. State, 76 Hawai'i 423, 427, 879 P.2d 528, 532 (1994)).
"A fundamental tenet of Hawai'i law is that '[p]leadings prepared by pro se litigants should be interpreted...
To continue reading
Request your trial