Case Title: State v. Ilalio

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2005-04-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
‘+*¢NOT FOR PUBLICATION*#*

 

 

No. 25883

=
m
c

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I -

Haid wa song

STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellant

JAMES PAUL ILALIO, also known as Lopaki Sakalia
and Vitti Ialio, Defendant-Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT
(CR. NO. 02-1-2609)

(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, and Duffy, JJ.
and Acoba, J., Dissenting, With Whom Nakayama, J., Joins)

By its June 10, 2003 notice, Plaintiff-Appellee State

 

ef Hawai'i (the prosecution) appeals from the May 29, 2003 ordi
of the circuit court of the first circuit (the court)* dismissing

the December 3, 2002 indictment charging Defendant-Appellee James
Paul Ilalio, also known as Lopaki Sakalia and Vitti Ilalaio

(Defendant) with Count I, habitually driving under the influence

of intoxicating liquor or drugs, Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS

(Supp. 2000) and/or 291-4.4(a) (2) (Supp 2000)

$$ 291-4.4(a) (2)
and Count II, driving after license suspended or revoked for
driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor, HRS § 291-4.5
on appeal the prosecution argues, inter

(1993 & Supp. 2000).
and HRS

alia that, as to HRS §§ 291-4.4(a) (1) and ~4.4(a) (2)

‘The Honorable Sandra A. Simms presided
 

‘ssNoT FOR PUBLICATION:

§ 291-4.5, “the trial court abused its discretion when it
dismissed the indictment as the [prosecution] properly charged
Defendant under the statutes that were in effect at the time
Defendant committed the offenses in question.” State v
Dominguez,
that HRS § 291-4.4 (Supp. 1999) was substantially re-enacted in

Hawad' w--, 107 P.3d 409, 411 (2008), held

    

HRS § 2916-61 (Supp. 2001) and is dispositive of Count 1.7 state
vs Young, No. 25610, slip op. at 3-4 (Mar. 30, 2005), held that
HRS § 291-4.5 (1993 6 Supp. 2000) was substantially re-enacted in
HRS § 2918-62 (Supp. 2004) and is dispositive of Count 11.
Therefore,

In accordance with Hawai'i Rules of Appellate Procedure
Rule 35, and after carefully reviewing the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties, and duly considering and analyzing the
Jaw relevant to the argunents and issues raised by the parties,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the court’s order filed on

May 29, 2003, from which the appeal is taken, is vacated with

+ _befendant’s argunents that (1) “prosecution is barred by the
general rule prohibiting post-repeai prosecutions,” (2) “prosecution Ss barred
By the plain meaning of Act 189's repeal of HRS $§ 291

(3) "prosecution 1s barred because HRS § 2916-61 i= not. (a)
enactnent’ of HRS § 291-¢.4 and HRS § 2918-62 18 not a “substantial re
Ghactment’ Of HAS § 291-4.5*" are isposed of and subsumed in the analyses set
forth in the majority and dissenting opinions in Deainaues and Joune.
Getenane argues further thet s{ulnder the seule Gf enity, an omblgutty, if
any, attendant to the Legislature's repeal of as $6 291-4.4 and 292

Should be resolved in [Defendant's] favor." However, no ambiguity is
Giscernes in the repeal of HRS §§ 291-4.¢ and 291.

 

   

 

 

 
‘**NOT FOR PUBLICATION***

 

respect to Count I and vacated with respect to Count II, and the
case remanded to the court in accordance with this order

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, April 4, 2005.

on the briefs:
Mark Yuen, Deputy Prosecuting D .
Attorney, City & county of AEG ora
Honolula, for plaintst#
appellant.

Grae dadiys >

James S. Tabe, Deputy Public
Defender, for defendant-
appellee.