State v. Thompson ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •   NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
    Electronically Filed
    Intermediate Court of Appeals
    CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
    09-JUN-2022
    07:48 AM
    Dkt. 51 SO
    NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
    IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
    OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
    STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
    RIAN THOMPSON, Defendant-Appellant
    APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
    (WAI#ANAE DIVISION)
    (CASE NO. 1DTA-19-02260)
    SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
    (By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Hiraoka and Nakasone, JJ.)
    Defendant-Appellant Rian Thompson (Thompson) appeals
    from the Notice of Entry of Judgment and/or Order and
    Plea/Judgment entered on September 25, 2020 (Judgment), in the
    District Court of the First Circuit, Wai#anae Division (District
    Court).1
    On July 15, 2019, Thompson was charged by complaint
    with Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of an Intoxicant, in
    violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 291E-61(a)(1) and/or
    (a)(3) (Supp. 2018).2      On February 14, 2020, Thompson moved to
    1
    The Honorable Sherri-Ann L. Iha presided.
    2
    HRS § 291E-61(a) provides, in part:
    HRS § 291E-61 Operating a vehicle under the
    influence of an intoxicant (a) A person commits the
    offense of operating a vehicle under the influence of
    an intoxicant if the person operates or assumes actual
    (continued...)
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
    dismiss the case pursuant to Hawai#i Rules of Penal Procedure
    (HRPP) Rule 48 and/or his constitutional speedy trial rights.           On
    September 25, 2020, the District Court dismissed the case without
    prejudice.
    Thompson raises a single point of error on appeal,
    contending that the District Court erred in dismissing the case
    without prejudice, instead of with prejudice.          Thompson further
    contends that, at the very least, the case should be vacated and
    remanded for appropriate findings.
    Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawai#i (the State) argues
    that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in
    dismissing the case without prejudice.         However, the State
    acknowledges that the District Court did not state that it
    considered the Estencion3 factors and then clearly articulate its
    findings on the record.
    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 Thompson's point of error as follows:
    HRPP Rule 48(b) provides that "the court shall, on
    motion of the defendant, dismiss the charge, with or without
    2
    (...continued)
    physical control of a vehicle:
    (1)   While under the influence of alcohol in an
    amount sufficient to impair the person's
    normal mental faculties or ability to care
    for the person and guard against casualty;
    . . . .
    (3)   With .08 or more grams of alcohol per two
    hundred ten liters of breath[.]
    3
    See State v. Estencion, 
    63 Haw. 264
    , 
    625 P.2d 1040
     (1981).
    2
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
    prejudice in its discretion, if trial is not commenced within"
    the time required by HRPP Rule 48.         "[I]n determining whether to
    dismiss a charge with or without prejudice under HRPP Rule 48(b),
    the trial court must not only consider the Estencion factors, but
    must also clearly articulate the effect of the Estencion factors
    and any other factor it considered in rendering its decision."
    State v. Hern, 133 Hawai#i 59, 64, 
    323 P.3d 1241
    , 1246 (App.
    2013) (citation omitted).       In addition, a trial court has the
    inherent power in criminal cases to "dismiss a case on its own
    motion for failure to prosecute with due diligence" with or
    without prejudice, but must issue written findings articulating
    the reasons for its decision to dismiss with or without
    prejudice.    See State v. Mageo, 78 Hawai#i 33, 37-38, 
    889 P.2d 1092
    , 1096-97 (App. 1995) (citations omitted).           Indeed, the trial
    court must consider the appropriate factors, which depend upon
    the grounds for dismissal.       See id. at 37, 
    889 P.2d at 1096
    (dismissal with or without prejudice for want of prosecution
    requires a "balancing of the interest of the state against
    fundamental fairness to a defendant with the added ingredient of
    the orderly functioning of the court system" (quoting State v.
    Moriwake, 
    65 Haw. 47
    , 56, 
    647 P.2d 705
    , 712 (1982)) (internal
    quotation marks and brackets omitted),4 see also Estencion, 63
    4
    The factors that the trial court should consider in maintaining
    this balance include:
    (1) the severity of the offense charged; (2) the
    number of prior mistrials and the circumstances of the
    jury deliberation therein, so far as is known; (3) the
    character of prior trials in terms of length,
    complexity and similarity of evidence presented;
    (4) the likelihood of any substantial difference in a
    (continued...)
    3
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
    Haw. at 269, 
    625 P.2d at 1044
     (dismissal with or without
    prejudice for violation of HRPP Rule 48 requires consideration
    of:   "the seriousness of the offense; the facts and the
    circumstances of the case which led to the dismissal; and the
    impact of a reprosecution on the administration of this chapter
    and on the administration of justice").
    Here, the District Court did not enter findings in
    support of its decision to dismiss the case without prejudice and
    the record in this case is inadequate for this court to
    meaningfully review whether the District Court properly exercised
    its discretion.
    Therefore, the District Court's September 25, 2020
    Judgment is vacated, and this case is remanded to the District
    Court to enter appropriate findings.
    DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 9, 2022.
    On the briefs:                            /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
    Presiding Judge
    Richard L. Holcomb,
    for Defendant-Appellant.                  /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
    Associate Judge
    Stephen K. Tsushima,
    Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,              /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
    City and County of Honolulu,              Associate Judge
    for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    4
    (...continued)
    subsequent trial, if allowed; (5) the trial court's
    own evaluation of relative case strength; and (6) the
    professional conduct and diligence of respective
    counsel, particularly that of the prosecuting
    attorney.
    Moriwake, 65 Haw. at 56, 
    647 P.2d at 712-13
     (citation omitted).
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: CAAP-20-0000637

Filed Date: 6/9/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/9/2022