Case Title: State v. Purtell

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2005-05-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
LAW LIBRARY

‘### NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

No. 25752

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

 

4 Sl

STATE OF HAWAI'I,
Plaintif£-Appellee-Respondent,

    

JOSEPH P. PURTELL, JR.»
Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner.

‘su
02:6

ee

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
(CR. NO. 98-1052)

‘SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(ay: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, JJ.; and Acoba, J.
‘Concurring separately, with whom Duffy, J., joins)

on February 23, 2005, the defendant-appellant-
petitioner Joseph P. Purtell, Jr. filed an application for writ
of certiorari, requesting that this court review the summary
disposition order (S00) of the Intermediate Court of Appeals
(Tea) in State v. Purtell, No. 25752 (January 28, 2005)
[hereinafter, “the ICA’s SD0"]. The ICA affirmed the Merch 25,
2003 findings of fact (FOFs), conclusions of law (COLs), and
order of the circuit court of the first circuit, the Honorable
Victoria $. Marks presiding, denying Purtell’s motion for
correction of illegal sentence pursuant to Hawai'i Rules of Penal
Procedure (HRPP) Rule 35.

In his application for writ of certiorari, Purtell
argues, inter alia (1) that the ICA violated the United states
Constitution by impairing his ability to contract, (2) that
‘#44 NOT FOR PUBLICATION *#*
Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) §§ 605-2 (1993) and 605-14 (1993 «
Supp. 2004) do not override the constitutional right to contract,
(3) that the ICA “abused its discretion” in failing to follow
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and (4) that this
court must follow the decision of the United States District
court for the District of Hawai'i in Kaua v. Frank, 350 F.Supp.2d
848 (D. Haw. 2004).

upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to
the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we affirm the ICA's
00, but for the reasons stated herein.

Inasmuch as “[t)here is no right to lay counsel,”
United States v. Turnbull, 888 F.2d 636, 638 (9th Cir. 1989), the

ICA did not err in affirming the circuit court's refusal to allow

 

Purtell’s “agent” to represent him in court. See United States
w.Tkan, 105 F.Supp.2d 608 (S.D. Texas 2000) (“Tran may not rely
on others to assist him and then disavow their work when it is
ineffectual.”). See also HRS $§ 605-2 (1993) and 605-14 (1993).

Purtell was sentenced in 1999, prior to the Supreme
Court’s 2000 Apprendi decision. In light of this court’s recent
holding in State v. Gomes, No. 26466, slip op. (May 26, 2008),
the ICA erred in reaching the merits of Purtell’s appeal from the
circuit court's denial of his HRPP Rule 35 motion, inasmuch as we
held that new rule of criminal procedure announced in Apprendi
does not apply retroactively on collateral attack. See United
States v. Sanchez-Cervantes, 282 F.3d 664, 667 (9 Cir. 2002).
See also See In re Tatum, 233 F.3d 857, 858 (Sth Cir. 2000);
‘+ NOT FOR PUBLICATION *#*

Talbott v. Indiana, 226 F.3d 866, 869 (7th Cir. 2000); Sepulveda
vs United States, 330 F.3d 55, 63 (1st Cir. 2003); United states
ws Sanders, 247 F.3d 139, 149-51 (4th Cir. 2001), cert. denied,
534 U.S. 1032 (2001); United States v, Moss, 252 F.3d 993, 997
(ath Cir. 2001), cert, denied, 534 U.S. 1097 (2002); and Mccoy ye
United states, 266 F.3d 1245, 1258 (11th Cir. 2001), certs
denied, 536 U.S. 906 (2002). Nonetheless, we affirm the result
reached in the ICA’s SDO on the basis that the rule in Apprendi.
does not apply retroactively on collateral attack to Purtell’s
appeal. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the ICA’s SDO is affirmed,
although on the grounds stated in this order.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘, May 31, 2005.

Joseph. P. Partell, J-,

defendanc-appellant=

petitioner bea as .

Gn the weie ic Rta
Pe crrmcayare