Case Title: Cornelio v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2006-11-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
LAW LIBRARY

NO. 27395

3
Ia THE SUPREME Coun? oP ‘He snace oF anual

a3

  

‘0:8 WY 9~ AON souz

WILLIAM A. CORNELIO, IIr, Petitioner-appellai

STATE OF HAWAI'I, Respondent -Appellee.

 

APPEAL FROM THE SECOND CIRCUIT COURT
(SPP NO. 05-1-0014)
(CR. NO, 94-0590) .

‘SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.)

 

Petitioner/defendant-appellant William A, Cornelio,

III, appearing pro ge, appeals from the Circuit Court of the

cond

 

Second Circuit’s' June 21, 2005 order denying Cornelio’s

of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 40 petition for

 

Hawai'i Rul

post-conviction relief (hereinafter, Petition 11]. in Petition

 

rted that the trial court presiding

 

IE, Cornelio essentially a:
over his jury trial failed to instruct the jury that, in order to
convict him of multiple offenses, the jury was required to find
that Cornelio acted with “separate and distinct intents.

on appeal, Cornelio contends that the circuit court
erred in denying Petition IT without affording him a hearing

inasmich as he had stated a colorable claim for relief.

4 the Honorable shackley 7. Raffetco presided over the underlying
proceedings.
specifically, Cornelio argues that (1) the trial court failed to

give a “separate and distinct intents” instruction to the jury

   

and (2) he was denied effective assistance of trial and appellate
counsel because (a) trial counsel failed to request the foregoing
jury instruction and (b) appellate counsel failed to challenge on
@ixect appeal the trial court’s failure to instruct the jury.

upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs
submitted and having given due consideration to the arguments
advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we resolve the
parties’ contentions as follows. .

(2) Cornelio asserts that the “trial court should have
instructed the jury that[,] in order to convict [Cornelio] of
multiple offenses[,] the jury was required to find that
(Cornelio) acted with ‘seperate [sic] and distinct’ intenta./*

HRPP Rule 40(a) (3) provides:

(3) mapeuicasrLiTy. gule 40 proceedings shall not be

‘the issues sought tobe raised have been previously ruled
pon or were waived. xcept for a claim of illegal
sstandingly failed to raise i could hav
inised before the trial, at the trial, on ampeal, ina
habeas corpus proceeding oF any other proceeding actually
conducted,
his rule, ind the petitioner is unable to prove the
existence of extraordinary circumstances to. justify the
petitioner's failure to raise the issue, There is a

  

 

 

 

 

(capital letters in original.) (Emphases added.)
jue whether the trial court

 

In the instant case, the i
should have instructed the jury on “separate and distinct

intents” ‘could have been raised” at the trial, on appeal, or in

 
a prior proceeding actually initiated under HRPP Rule 40, i.e,
the proceeding on Cornelio’s first HRPP Rule 40 petition for
post-conviction relief [hereinafter, Petition I], Inasmich ag

1@ whether the trial court

 

Cornelio failed (1) to raise the i
should have instructed the jury on “separate and distinct
intents” at the trial, on appeal, or in Petition I, (2) to
present any facts to rebut the presumption that the failure to
raise that issue was made knowingly and understandingly, and

(3) to prove the existence of extraordinary circumstances to
justify hie failure to raise the issue, Cornelio has waived the
issue for purposes of Petition II. See Stanley v, State, .76
Hawai'i 446, 451, 879 P.2d $51, $86 (1994).

(2) Cornelio next asserts that he was denied effective
assistance of trial and appellate counsel. With respect to the
issue of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, however,
Cornelio failed to specify this allegation as a ground for relief
in Petition IT. Although “failure to raise a(n HRPP] Rule 40
issue specifically in the petition does not pex se defeat the
possibility of obtaining relief on that ground in the Rule 40
proceeding,” 2 pro se petitioner “still must alert the court to
the general issue that is the basis of his claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel.” Stanley, 76 Hawai'i at 450-51, 679 P.24
at 555-56 (citing Bryant v. State, 6 Haw. App. 331, 335, 720 P.2d
1015, 1019 (1986), disapproved on other grounds by Briones v.

State, 74 Haw. 442, 848 P.2d 966 (1993)). Here, however,

 

Cornelio did not alert the circuit court to the general issue

 
that is the basis of his claim of ineffective assistance of trial
counsel. In Petition IT, there was no mention of the allegation
that Cornelio now asserte on appeal, ive., that he was denied
effective assistance of trial counsel. Consequently,

respondent /plaintiff-appellee State of Hawai'i (the prosecution)
could not respond, and the circuit court never considered the
issue. Because the “general rule ie that an issue which was not
raised in the [circuit] court will not be considered on appeal,”
Foo v, State, 106 Hawai'i 102, 124, 102 P.3d 346, 358 (2004)
(internal quotation marks, brackets, and citation dmitted), we
need not address Cornelio’s claim of ineffective assiatance of
trial counsel. See Stanley, 76 Hawai'i at 451, 879 P.2d at 556
(refusing to address the issue of erroneous exclusion of jury
instructions when raised for the first time when! appealing the
denial of the petitioner's HRPP Rule 40 petition) .

Nonetheless, even assuming arguendo that Cornelio
valerted" the circuit court to the general issue of ineffective
assistance of trial counsel, such issue would have been waived.
Although this court has previously stated that,

(w)nere [the] petitioner has been represented by the sane

Senne of tilal counsel's pertorsance cecirs Because no

Fealistic opportunity existed to raise the issue on direct
appeal [1

 

Briones, 74 Haw. at 459, 646 P.2d at 975 (citations omitted), in
this case, Cornelio was not represented by the sane counsel at
trial and on direct appeal. In fact, Keith Tanaka, Cornelio's

trial counsel, filed a motion to withdraw as counsel, which the

 
trial court subsequently granted, and Anthony Vierra, Cornelio’s
sentencing counsel, filed a motion to withdraw as counsel
precisely because Cornelio indicated an interest to raise a claim
of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Consequently, Vickie
Russell was appointed as Cornelio’s counsel for his direct
appeal, Thus, the issue sought to be raised in the instant
appeal, i.e., whether trial counsel was ineffective in failing to
request the “separate and distinct intents" jury instruction or
failing to object to the trial court’s failure to give such an
instruction, could have been raised on direct appeal. Because
Cornelio failed to present any facts to rebut the presumption

that the failure to raise that issue was made knowingly and

 

understandingly, and Cornelio has failed to prove the existence
of extraordinary circumstances to justify his failure to raise
the issue, Cornelio has waived the issue of ineffective
assistance of trial counsel for purposes of Petition II. see
sta , 105 Hawai'i 74, 78, 93 P.34 1261, 1285 (App. 2004)
(concluding that the petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance
of trial counsel was waived for purposes of his HRPP Rule 40
petition because he did not raise such a claim in his direct
appeal and he was not represented by the sane counsel at trial
and on direct appeal) .

With respect to Cornelio’s claim of ineffective
assistance of appellate counsel, such claim is Likewise waived.
Cornelio had a “realistic opportunity” to raise his claim of

ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in Petition I.

 
Although Cornelio was represented by, Vickie Russell on the appeal.

of Petition I, Cornelio filed Petition I pro se and appeared pro

 

gg throughout the entire circuit court proceedings. Thus

 

Russell's appointment as Petition I appellate counsel did not

nt his

 

deprive Cornelio of a realistic opportunity to pr
ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim in Petition 1.

Inasmuch as Cornelio failed to present any facts to rebut the

 

Presumption that the failure to raise the issue whether appellaté
counsel was ineffective was made knowingly and understandingly,
and Cornelio has failed to prove the existence of extraordinary
circumstances to justify his failure to raise the issue, Cornelio
has waived the issue of ineffective assistance of appellate
counsel for purposes of Petition II.

Thus, based on the foregoing, Cornelio has waived the
issues sought to be raised in Petition II. Accordingly, we hold
that the circuit court did not err in dismissing Cornelio’s
Petition II pursuant to HRPP Rule 40(g) (2). Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the circuit court’s June 21,
2005 order denying Cornelio’s Petition II is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, November 6, 2006.

on the briefs:
William A. Cornelio, r1r, Z& a :
petiticner-appellant,
appearing pro se eater Cr asl ener

Peter A. Hanano, vn
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Gorn t. Didlge h ,

for respondent -appellee