Justia Hawaii Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the judgment of the intermediate court of appeals (ICA) ruling that some of the grounds of Albert Batalona’s post-conviction petition raised colorable claims for relief and that the circuit court correctly denied the petition with regard to the remaining grounds, holding (1) the grounds of Batalona’s petition asserting that defense counsel’s failure to challenge the denial of Defendant’s request for a copy of discovery materials resulted in the impairment of his right to present a complete defense and adversely affected his waiver of the right to testify raised colorable claims for relief; and (2) the ICA properly denied a hearing with regard to the remaining grounds set forth in the petition except as to ground 18, which the Court dismissed with prejudice. With respect to the State’s certiorari application, the Court affirmed the ICA’s determination that the ground of Defendant’s petition asserting that defense counsel failed to exercise a good faith effort to obtain a robbery co-participant’s attendance at trial raised a colorable claim for relief. View "Batalona v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the judgment of the intermediate court of appeals (ICA) ruling that some of the grounds of Albert Batalona’s post-conviction petition raised colorable claims for relief and that the circuit court correctly denied the petition with regard to the remaining grounds, holding (1) the grounds of Batalona’s petition asserting that defense counsel’s failure to challenge the denial of Defendant’s request for a copy of discovery materials resulted in the impairment of his right to present a complete defense and adversely affected his waiver of the right to testify raised colorable claims for relief; and (2) the ICA properly denied a hearing with regard to the remaining grounds set forth in the petition except as to ground 18, which the Court dismissed with prejudice. With respect to the State’s certiorari application, the Court affirmed the ICA’s determination that the ground of Defendant’s petition asserting that defense counsel failed to exercise a good faith effort to obtain a robbery co-participant’s attendance at trial raised a colorable claim for relief. View "Batalona v. State" on Justia Law

The circuit court correctly ruled that this criminal case must be dismissed because Defendant’s Hawai’i Rules of Penal Procedure Rule 48 rights had been violated where the twenty-one day period between Defendant’s arraignment and the first setting of the waiver or demand of a jury trial hearing was not excludable pursuant to Rule 48(c)(1) or (c)(8).The circuit court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss his criminal charges with prejudice for violation of Rule 48. The intermediate court of appeals vacated the dismissal order, holding (1) a twenty-one day period between Defendant’s arraignment and the first setting of the waiver/demand hearing was excludable from Rule 48 calculations under subsections (c)(1) and (c)(8); and (2) while the case should not have been dismissed, the circuit court also erred in failing to consider the factors identified in State v. Estencion, 625 P.2d 1040 (1981) in dismissing the case with prejudice. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) Defendant’s Rule 48 rights were not violated under the circumstances of this case; and (2) upon remand, the circuit court must properly apply the Estencion factors to determine whether the case should be dismissed with or without prejudice. View "State v. Choy Foo" on Justia Law

Because restitution is part of the “maximum penalty provided by law” and is a direct consequence of conviction, defendants must be appropriately advised and questioned in open court regarding their understanding of this possibility before a court can accept their guilty or no contest plea.In a plea agreement with the State, to which the circuit court agreed to be bound, Defendant agreed to plead guilty in three criminal cases, provided that he would be sentenced to certain terms of imprisonment. On appeal, Defendant argued that the circuit court violated the agreement by also sentencing him to pay restitution. The intermediate court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions without prejudice to him filing a Hawai’i Rule of Penal Procedure Rule 40 petition in the circuit court, holding (1) courts must advise defendants that restitution is a possible consequence of conviction before accepting their pleas; and (2) although the circuit court did not conduct a proper colloquy in Defendant’s case, Defendant never filed an appropriate motion in the circuit court. View "State v. Kealoha" on Justia Law

A purchaser of property that is subject to a mortgage to which the purchaser is not a party may challenge a foreclosing plaintiff’s entitlement to enforce the note.Karen Zakarian executed a promissory note secured by a mortgage executed on certain property. The mortgage was ultimately assigned to Wells Fargo. As a result of a separate foreclosure action, a court-appointed commissioner conveyed the property to Jonathan Behrendt. Wells Fargo filed a complaint seeking foreclosure of the mortgage and sale of the property. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Wells Fargo, concluding that Wells Fargo was entitled to have the property sold free and clear of Behrendt’s claim. On appeal, Behrendt argued that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding Wells Fargo’s standing to sue and whether Wells Fargo was the holder of the note. In response, Wells Fargo argued that because Behrendt was not a party to the mortgage and the mortgage conferred no contractual rights or standing on Behrendt, Behrendt could not attack the foreclosure. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) Behrendt may challenge the foreclosure; and (2) the evidence Wells Fargo presented regarding its entitlement to foreclose at the time the complaint was filed was not admissible on the grounds asserted. View "Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Behrendt" on Justia Law

The estate of a viable fetus can recover for loss of enjoyment of life - also known as “hedonic” - damages.Plaintiff, an inmate, alleged that the actions of correctional officers and the subsequent failure of medical personnel to provide her with treatment caused the stillbirth of her eight-month-old fetus, Briandalynne. Plaintiff sued Petitioners for negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The circuit court ruled in favor of Plaintiff, awarding, in part, Briandalynne’s estate $250,000 for loss of enjoyment of life. The intermediate court of appeals (ICA) affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Briandalynne’s estate could maintain a survival action against Petitioners for hedonic damages; and (2) the record supported the damages award in this case. View "Castro v. Melchor" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the intermediate court of appeal’s (ICA) order dismissing Appellant’s appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction and remanded this case to the ICA for further proceedings because the record did not establish that Appellant’s court-appointed counsel consulted with Appellant to determine whether he wished to appeal the judgment of conviction and probation sentence adjudging Appellant guilty of one count of theft in the second degree. The ICA determined that Appellant’s appeal, which was filed outside of the required statutory thirty-day period, did not fall within an exception to the requirement that the notice of appeal be timely filed. The Supreme Court held (1) pursuant to Maddox v. State, 407 P.3d 152, 161 (2017), Appellant was entitled, on his first appeal, to court-appointed counsel who “may not deprive him of his appeal by electing to forego compliance with procedural rules”; and (2) therefore, under Haw. R. App. P. 4(b), the ICA had jurisdiction to consider Appellant’s untimely appeal. View "State v. McDaniel " on Justia Law

In this criminal case in which Defendant pleaded no contest to one count of custodial interference in the first degree, the family court erred in ordering Defendant to reimburse the State for the costs of her extradition, and the intermediate court of appeals (ICA) gravely erred in affirming the family court’s imposition of extradition costs. In addition, the ICA erred by essentially imposing, on its own initiative and in an appeal, extradition costs as a discretionary condition of probation. The Supreme Court held that, in taking such action to resolve Defendant’s appeal, the ICA improperly intruded upon the family court’s discretionary authority to impose extradition costs and to determine the conditions of a defendant’s probation. View "State v. Anzalone" on Justia Law

The circuit court erred by engaging in a comprehensive inquiry into the amount the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) actually needed for its administrative and operating expenses.In the first appeal in this case, the Supreme Court held that the political question doctrine did not bar a judicial interpretation of the meaning of “sufficient sums” for the DHHL administrative and operating expense, pursuant to Haw. Const. art. XII, 1. On remand, the circuit court concluded that DHHL’s actual need for its administrative and operating expenses was more than $28 million and that the legislature was constitutionally obligated to make such an appropriation to DHHL for fiscal year 2015-16. The court also enjoined the State and its director of finance from violating the constitution or breaching their fiduciary duties to Hawaiian Homelands trust beneficiaries. The Supreme Court vacated the circuit court’s final judgment and underlying orders, holding that the circuit court exceeded this court’s mandate in Nelson I when it determined the amount DHHL actually needed for its administrative and operating expenses. View "Nelson v. Hawaiian Homes Commission" on Justia Law

In this negligence case, the circuit court abused its discretion in entering default against Defendant and in refusing to set aside the entry of default. In addition, the circuit court erred in sua sponte dismissing Petitioners’ claims with prejudice and entering final judgment against them.After the circuit court entered the default against Defendant and denied Defendant’s motion to set aside the entry of default, it denied Petitioners’ motion for entry of default judgment. In its order denying Petitioners’ motion, the circuit court also sua sponte dismissed Petitioners’ claims against Defendant with prejudice. The court then entered final judgment against Petitioners. The intermediate court of appeals (ICA) affirmed the circuit court’s decision denying entry of default judgment based on the merits of Petitioners’ negligence case. The Supreme Court vacated and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the circuit court (1) erred in entering the default and erred in refusing to set aside the entry of default; and (2) erred in dismissing Petitioners’ claims with prejudice and in entering judgment against them. View "Dela Cruz v. Quemado" on Justia Law