Case Title: State v. Davis

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2005-10-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
LAWLUBRARY
*** NOTFOR PUBLICATION ***

 

no. 26164

3 SHE SHPRE cove oF mi SE wane a

STATE OF HAWAT'I, Plaintiff-Appellee,

 

ents

COWS

 

oats

Lt OY 8)

 

TAMIL, DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.

 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 1P102-06486; HPD CR. NO. 02240833)

‘SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

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

Defehdant-Appellant Tami Lynn Davis appeals from the
District Court of the First Circuit’s November 6, 2003 final
judgment revoking Davis's probation and resentencing her to
thirty days’ incarceration.’ Davis contends that the district
court erred by: (1) imposing and refusing to vacate or modify
the geographic restriction that prohibited Davis from being on
public property within the Waiktkt area, where she allegedly
worked and resided, between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m.; and (2) revoking
Davis's probation based on a violation of the geographic
restriction.

Upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to
the argunents advocated and the issues raised, we hold as

follows:

+ The Honorable Russel Nagate presided over this matter.
 

*** NOTFOR PUBLICATION **

 

(2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in
imposing and refusing to modify or vacate the
geographic restriction condition of probation for
violation of Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 712-
1207(1) (Supp. 2000). See State v. Yamamoto, 79
Hawai'i 511, 514, 904 P.2d $25, $28 (1995) ("Whether
probation should be granted, revoked, or modified lies
solely within the discretion of the sentencing
court.”). First, the geographic restriction, mandated
by HRS § 712-1207(5) (Supp. 2000),? was not overbroad
nor unduly restrictive of Davis’s rights,
notwithstanding that Davis allegedly lived and worked
in the restricted area. See HRS § 712-1207: cat.
(“Defendants that live in Waikiki and choose to remain
in Waikiki during the prohibited hours are required to

stay off the streets and sidewalks during those

+ was § 712-1207(8) states:

(5) Ag an option to the mandatory term of thirty days
Anpetsonnent, if the court finds the option 12 warranted
bbesed upon the defendant's record, the court may place the
Gefendant on probation for « period not to exceed. six

rronths, te the ws 2 .
jefengant 7 rensin is
Sielation of the ions By the deter
ediatel z ada
Simca Nothing contained in this subsection

Shall Ge construed a prohibiting the imposition ef stricter
Geographic restrictions under section 706-€24 (2) (h

2
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

 

hours.”). Furthermore, Davis admitted that she
understood end could abide by the restriction. Second,
the geographic restriction is reasonably related to the
purpose of rehabilitation because it prohibits her from
being in an area where she was apprehended for
prostitution, during times that the legislature and
this court have found are most closely associated with
prostitution. See State v. Stanford, 79 Hawai'i 150,
154, 900 P.2d 157, 161 (1995) (*{A]1though the
restriction covers a large physical space (the ‘Waikiki
area’), [the defendant] is only forbidden to enter this
area during the hours most closely associated with the
sxime_tor which she was found quilty.”) (Emphasis
added); 1998 Haw. Sess. Laws 149 ("The legislature
finds that the level of prostitution in Waikiki has

become intolerable.”

 

(2) The district court did not abuse its discretion in
revoking Davis's probation because Davis understood the
conditions of her probation and inexcusably failed to
comply with the geographic restriction, which was a
substantial requirenent of the probation, prior to the
end of her probation period. See HRS § 712-1207(5)
(“Upon any violation of the geographic restrictions by

the defendant, the court, after hearing, shall revoke
*** NOTFOR PUBLICATION ***

the defendant's probation and imnediately impose the
mandatory thirty-day term of imprisonment."); HRS §

706-625 (Supp. 2000) (“The court shall revoke probation
Af the defendant has inexcusably failed to comply with
a substantial requirement imposed as a condition of the

order(. Therefore,

 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the district court's
November 6, 2003 final judgment revoking probation and
resentencing Davis to thirty days incarceration is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, October 18, 2005.

On the briefs: ore
Lesley N. Maloian,
Deputy Public Defender, MeL aa

for defendant-appellant
Tami L. Davis

Alexa D.M. Fujise,

Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
for plaintiff-appellee ee

State of Hawai'i