Case Title: State v. Sorino. ICA Opinion, filed 06/29/2005 [pdf], 108 Haw. 115. Concurring Opinion by. J. Nakamura [pdf]. Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by Acting C.J. Watanabe [pdf]. S.Ct. Order Granting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 08/03/2005 [pdf], 108 Haw. 160.

Citation: 108 Haw. 162

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2005-08-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
4#* FOR PUBLICATION *#*

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘E®

LI on soaz

 

=== 000

 

oats

STATE OF HAWAI'I,
Plaintiff-Appellee-Respondent,

   

AL

GERVEN SORINO,
Defendant~Appellant-Petitioner.

No, 26009

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
(CR. NO. 98-0347)

AUGUST 17, 2005

MOON, C.J., LEVINSON, NAKAYAMA, ACOBA, AND DUFFY, JJ.
OPINION OF THE COURT BY LEVINSON, J.

on July 28, 2005, the defendant-appellant-petitioner
Gerven Sorino filed an application for a writ of certiorari,
requesting that this court review the Intermediate Court of
Appeal''s (ICA’s) published opinion [hereinafter, “the ICA's
opinion”) filed on June 29, 2005, affirming the July 2, 2003

order of the circuit court of the first circuit, the Honorable

Sandra A. Sinms presiding, denying Sorino’s April 8, 2003 motion

 

(2) to set aside the August 11, 1998 judgment, guilty conviction,
and probation sentence, (2) to allow defendant to withdraw his
plea of no contest, and (3) to set the case for trial
(hereinafter, “notion to set aside”) [collectively hereinafter,
“the order denying Sorino’s motion to set aside”). See State vw
Sotino, No. 26009, slip op. (Hawai'i App. June 29, 2005). on
August 3, 2005, we granted certiorari.
‘**# FOR PUBLICATION *#*

In his application, Sorino contends (1) that “the
majority of the [ICA] gravely erred when it affirmed the circuit
court’s order denying . . . Sorino’s motion to [set aside] where
the circuit court failed to comply with [Hawai'i Revised Statutes
(HRS)] § 802E-2 [(1993)"] so that withdrawal of . . . Sorino’s
plea was mandatory pursuant to HRS $ 802E-3 [(1993)}”;? and (2)
that “the majority opinion of the [ICA] is obviously inconsistent
with this court’s decision in State v, Nauyen{,]” 81 Hawai'i 279,
916 P.2d 689 (1996).

As discussed infra in section ITT, we granted
certiorari because the ICA's opinion suffers from a “grave
error(] of law” and is “inconsisten(t]” both with Nauyen and its
own reasoning. We therefore hold, consonant with our reasoning
in Nguyen, that Sorino is entitled to the protections of HRS

* ns § 8028-2 provides:

Court advisement concerning alien status required. Prior to
acceptance of a plea of guilty of nole contendere to any offense
punishable as a Crine under state lax, except offenses designated as
infractions under state lav, the court shall administer the following
advisement on the record to’ the defendant?

TE you are not a citizen of the United States, you are hereby

advised that conviction of the offense for which you have been

charged may have the consequences of deportation, exclusion from
admission fo the United States, of denial of naturalization

Pursuant to the laws of the United states.

Upon request, the court shail allow the defendant additional tine

to consider the appropriateness of the plea in light of the advisenene
as described in this section:

 

 

 

% RS § 8028-3 provides:

   

Failure to advise; vacation of judgment. If the court fails to
advise the defendant as required by section 8026-2 and the defendant’
shows that conviction of the offense to which the defendant piesded
guilty or nolo contendere nay have the consequences for the defenant of
Geportation, exciusion from admission to the United States, of denial of
naturalization pursuant to the laws of the United States, on defendant's
motion, the court shall vacate the Judgment and permit the defendant to
withdraw the ples of guilty or nolo contendere, and enter a plea of not
guilty. Absent a record that the court provided the advisenent required
by this section, the defendant shall be presumed not to have received
the required advisement.

   

 
4## FOR PUBLICATION *##
§§ 8026-2 and 802E-3, as well as Hawai'i Rules of Penal Procedure
(HRPP) Rule 11 (c) (5) (1998).? Accordingly, we (1) reverse the
ICA's opinion, (2) vacate the July 2, 2003 circuit court order
denying Sorino’s April 8, 2003 motion to set aside, and, (3)
pursuant to HRS §§ 802E-2 and 802E-3, remand this matter with
instructions to the circuit court (a) to vacate the judgment, (b)
to permit Sorino to withdraw his no contest plea and enter a plea
of not guilty, and (c) to conduct further proceedings consistent

with this opinion.

1. BACKGROUND
‘The following facts, adduced before the circuit court
and recited by the ICA in its lead opinion, are undisputed in

 

Sorino’s applicatior

on April 13, 1998, Sorine pled ne contest to
‘ecroristie Theeatening in the First Degree in vielation of
HRS. § 707-716(2) (4) (1993) .("] The circuit court sentenced
Sorine to five years of probation, and Judgment was entered
fon August 11, 1998. On July 9, 2002, the circuit court

Tevoked Sorino's probation, sentenced him to five years of

 

2 Rep Rule 11(e) provides in relevant part as follows:

(e) Advice to defendant. The cour’

 

shall not accept a plea of

 

  

guilty or pole sontendere without first addresaing the defendant
Personally in open court and determining that he understands the

following!

isi that 4£ ne ds not a citizen of the United states, a
conviction of the offense for which he has been charged may have
the consequences of deportation, exclusion from admission to the
United states, or denial of naturalization pursuant to the laws of
the United states.

 

 

‘rs § 707-716 provides in selevant part:

§ 707-716 Terzoristic threatening in the fizet degree. (1) A
person commits the offense of terroristic threatening in the first
Segre if the person comits terroristic threatening:

 

ii With the use of a dangerous instrument.
(2) Tervoristic threatening in the first degree is 2 class C
felony.
*#* FOR PUBLICATION *

 

Sgprisonment, and filed its Order of Resentencing/Revocation
of Probation:

On April @, 2003, Sorino filed the Motion to Withdraw
Plea, asking the clreult court to allow him to withdrew his
no contest plea and to set his case for trial Ton the
grounds: 1) that the Court did not advise Defendant of his
Smnigration status prior to accepting Defendant’ s plea of 20
contest and 2) manifest injustice.” Sorino argued that the
cizoust court had failed to advise him pursuant to HRS
§ 8028-2, (gee supra note 1,] and, therefore, pursuant to
Wns § 802z-3, (gee supra note 2,] the circuit Court was
mandated to vacate the Judgment, permit him to withdraw his
plea of no contest and enter a plea of not guilty, and set
The case for trial.” Attached co the motion was the April
23, 1998 transcript of proceedings at which Sorino hed
entered his no contest plea and a copy of « “Notice to
Appear In removal proceedings under ection 240 of the
Yemigration and Wationality Act” (Notice) from the
Immigration and Naturalization Service (2KS). (served on
Sorine on September 19, 2002). The Notice stated that
Scrine was departeble because he was not a citizen oF
ational of the United States and because he had been
convicted of Tecroristic Threatening in the First Degree
(committed against a person with whom he shared a child in
common} on August 11,1998 in the circuit court.” The Notice
farther stated that Sorino was subject to removal from the
United states pursuant to §237(a) (2) (B) (4) of the
Immigration and Naturalization Act, as amended, becau:
Sorino was an alien who, after entcy, had been convicted of
“a crime of domestic violence, 2 crite of stalking, of @
crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment.”

on May 28, 2003, the state filed a memocandus opposing
the Motion to Withdraw Plea, arguing that Serine did "not
held an absolute right to withdraw his plea” end there had
been no showing of “manifest injustice” entitling serine to
withdraw his pies. The State argued that the cecord showed
Serine had been advised by the circuit court and fully
understood the immigration consequences ef his plet

‘On June 2, 2003, the circuit court held a hearing on
the Motion to withdraw Plea. The circuit court issued ite
July 2, 2003 order denying the Notion to Withdraw Plea based
fon the’ following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. on March 20, 1898, Defendant’ s counsel requested
a nisdeneandr chatge for his client because of
“immigration consequences.”

2, on April 3, 1998, the court, by way of a
[p)ee-trial Conférence, advised Defendant’ s
counsel to contact the Innigrstion and
Naturalization Service regarding imigration
consequences for his client.

3. On Apel 13, 1998, Defendant was warned on the
record that his piea could have a bearing on his
relationship with the Immigration and
Naturalization Service: and based upon
colloquy with the court, Defendant was
sufficiently advised and fully understood the
potential inigration consequences of his plea.

 
4** FOR PUBLICATION **1

4. On April 13, 1998, Defendant signed a change of
Plea form which warned him that if he was not @
citizen of the United States, a conviction might
have the consequence of deportation.

 

CONCLUSIONS OF Law
1. The Court ts not required to resort to a

ritualistic Litany when advising a Defendant of
the consequences of hie plea. state v.
Cornelis, 68 Maw. 644, 727 P.2d 1125 (1986).
The Court may use additional sources other than
the Defendant to find » sufficient basis for his
1 67 Haw. 573, 698 P28

 

   

plea.
a7 (ses)

3. Based upon the Findings of Fact above, Defendant
hat failed to make a showing of manifest
injustice and therefore cannot withdraw his

 

 

plea. 776 Hawaii 408, 879 P.2d
513 (assal

ICA's lead opinion, slip op. at 3-5.

‘The TCA further noted that, at the April 13, 1998 plea
hearing,

[elather than reciting the advisement contained in BREP Rule

1 (ce) (5)(, see supra note 3,] and HRS § B0ZE-2, the circuit
court stated:

  

(THE COURT:) And then, lastly, you do not have
to tell me if you are or are not, but I'm required to
tell you that if you're not a citizen, this plea may
have 4 bearing on whatever relationship you have with
the Innigration end Naturalization Service. Do you
Understand that?

[Sorinol Yes

slip op. at 9. It is noteworthy (1) that the circuit court

Your Honor.

 

 

also asked Sorino (2) whether he had read the change of plea form
in its entirety, (b) whether he understood the form that he had
signed, and (c) whether he had any difficulty understanding and
speaking English and (2) that Sorino answered questions (a) and
(b) in the affirmative and responded that he could understand and
speak English.

on August 1, 2003, Sorino timely filed 2 notice of
appeal from the July 2, 2003 order denying his motion to set
aside. As recited by the ICA's lead opinion,

{elm appeal, Sorino contend{ed) (1) {that} the etzoutt court

erred unen it concluded it had complied with the requirement
Of Hawai'l Revised Statutes (HRS) § 802E-2 (1993) that it

 
#4 FOR PUBLICATION *##

adninister the statutory advisement on the record to Sorinoy
(2) (that) the circuit court erred when it denied [nis
motion to set aside) . .. because s grant of the mation was
mandatory, pursuant to ins § 8028-3 (1993), where the court
failed to’ comply with HRS § 802E-2; and (3) [that] Sorsno
was denied effective assistance of counsel with respect te
the Imotion te set aside]. because his counsel failed
to provide any legal authority other than HRS $§ €02E-2. and
GozB-3 and his counsel argued chat the circuit court should
apply the manifest injustice standard.

ICA's lead opinion, slip op. at 1-3.

 

 

On June 29, 2005, the ICA issued its published opinion
in the present matter. Writing for the majority, the Honorable
Daniel R. Foley noted (1) that the circuit court failed to recite
the advisement required by HRPP Rule 11(c) (5) and HRS § 8025-2,
ida slip op. at 9, and (2) that “{HRPP] Rule 11(c) (5) adopts the
advisement contained in HRS § 8028-2, making it clear that the
court shall address the defendant personally in open court and
determine that the defendant understands the advisement contained
in (HRPP] Rule 11(c) (5) and HRS § 802E-2." Id, (citing Nauven,
61 Hawas‘i at 268, 916 P.2d at 698). Judge Foley reasoned and
held in relevant part

 

Sorino did . . . sign a plea form that contained the
required advisenent: ‘rn anewer to the cizeust coure™s
1, Sorino answered that he had read the ples form
lauyer, understood it, and had no questions about
Sorino acknowledged that he understood end spoke

 

   

Nauven, the Hawas's Supreme Court discussed the
relationship among HRS $6 802E~2 and 0028-3 and HNPP Rules
11 (6) (5) end 32(d) [11998)].() Although Nauven concerned a
withdrawal of plea pursuant to HRPP Rule 32(d) peice to the
effective date of HRS Chapter £02E, the Hawai Supreme
Court, in quoting HRS § BO2E-3, indicated that HRS § G02E-3,
not HREP 32(d), would govern the withdrawal of a plea based
fon a court's failure to comply with the advisement required

 

 

* inpe Rule 32(d) provides:

(G) withdrawal of plea of guilty. A motion to withdeaw a plea of

guilty or of nolo contendere may be nade only before sentence is inpos
of Smposition of sentence is suspended; but to correct manifest

injustice the court after sentence shall set aside the judgment of
conviction and permit the defendant to withdrew his pit

    

 
 

* FOR PUBLICATION #*#

under HRS § 6026-2:
Nevertheless, Nguyen correctly asserts
chat @ statute, HRS Chapter 8028, currently

Fequires courts, prior to accepting a plea of

ole contendere, to advise defendants that, if

they are not citizens of the United stat

thelr convictions “may have the consequences of

deportation, exclusion from admission to the

United States, or denial of naturalization

pursuant to the laws of the United states.” RS

§ 602-2 (1993). Effective September 2, 1968,

an amendnent to HRPP Rule 11(c) (5) also’ requires

Courts to determine that auch defendants

Understand the collateral consequence of

possible deportation. “If the court fails to

Sdvise the defendant ae required by section

302e-2 and the defendant shows that conviction

of the otfense co which the defendant pleaded

o.pele contendere may have the consequence

for ine defendant of deportation, .... the

oust shall vacate the judgment.” “HRs'§ 8028-3

(assay.

Nguyen, 81 Hawai'i at 286-89, 916 P.2d at 698-99 (brackets
and footnotes omitted).

‘The circuit court therefore erred as a matter of law
in considering Sorino’s Notion to withdraw Plea under HRP
Rule 32(d) as opposed to HRS § 8028-3.

Dader tee § 6022°3, the ci ss se

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

i aay HAS

#t0ze-2, that advisement was to-be done by the cirouie
Serine personally in open court

‘SeterRining he understood that if he was “not «citizen of
She United Sestes, a conviction of the offense for which ne

 

‘on sdxisgion to the United Sea

“Alehouah the cireust court did not recite this

2 sly to Sorina, Sori
‘in_tesponse to an_inguiry trom the circuit court, that he
bed read thie advisement with bie attorney and understood

Ak Althovah the circuit court applied the wrong standard
n'denuing Serine’: Notion to Withdraw Ples; under the
‘Mandatd_set_forth in HAS $ O02E-2, Sorine’a motion should
je been denies
Sorino”s argument that his trial counsel was
ineffective in the filing and arguing of Sorine's. (motion to
set aside] is without merit.

Ids, slip op. at 10-11 (emphases added). Based on the foregoing,

       

the ICA affirmed the circuit court’s July 2, 2003 order denying
Sorino’s motion to set aside. Id. at 12.

The Honorable Craig H. Nakamura concurred separately,
‘*## FOR PUBLICATION *##
“agree[ing] with Judge Foley's conclusion that the circuit court
satisfied the requirements of [HRS] § 802E-2 and [HRPP) Rule
11{c) (5) in accepting [Sorino’s] no contest plea{,)” but
asserting that, insofar as “this conclusion disposes of Sorino’s
appeal regardless of whether the standard for plea withdrawal set
forth in HRS § 802E-3 or in HRPP 32(d) applies,” he “would not
reach the issue of which standard applies in Sorino's case.”
Judge Nakamura therefore “concur{red] in the result reached by
Judge Foley and join{ed) in his conclusion that the circuit
court's plea colloquy satisfied the requirements of HRS § 802E-2
and HRPP Rule 11(c) (5)(,]” but “express{ed] no opinion on the
relationship between HRS § 8025-3 and HRPP Rule 32(¢).”
‘The Honorable Corinne K.A, Watanabe, acting as Chief
Judge of the ICA, concurred separately with and also dissented
from Judge Foley's lead opinion. Judge Watanabe agreed with
Judge Foley (1) that the circuit court “erred by considering
+ Sorino’s {motion to set aside] . . . under [HRPP] Rule
32(d) instead of (HRS) § 802E-3[,]” (2) that “HRPP Rule 11(c) (5),
which was adopted by the Hawai'i Supreme Court to implement HRS
chapter 802£, ‘mak(es] it clear that the court shall address the
defendant personally in open court and determine that the
defendant understands the advisement contained in [HRPP] Rule
11 (c)(S) and HRS § 802-2," and (3) that “the circuit court
failed to ‘recit{e] the advisement contained in HRPP Rule
11(c) (5) and HRS § 802E-2" to Sorino in open court.” Concurring
and dissenting opinion, slip op. at 1 (some brackets added and
some in original). Nevertheless, Judge Watanabe “respectfully
disagree(d] with the majority's conclusion that Sorino’s motion
was properly denied.” Id.
Ides

slip

‘#4 FOR PUBLICATION *#*

Judge Watanabe explained, inter alia that,

(Jn ther] view, the language of HRS § 8025-2 is plain and
Unambiguous. Te mandated that the circuit court give a very
explicit edvisenent to Sorine "on the record” before
accepting his no-contest plea. The circuit court clearly
Gid not recite the advisement to Sorin and, therefore,
Violated the terme of HRS § 8025-2.

The Language of HRS § 8022-3 is also plain and
unambiguous in setting forth the consequences that must
follow Lf 4 court fails to give the statutory advisement

Since the circuit court failed to give Sorino the
statutory advisement required by HAS § 8022-2 snd Sorina
Showed that his conviction had deportation consequences, as
evidenced by the deportation proceedings initiated against
him by the Inigration and Naturalization Service on
Septenber 19, 2002, (Judge Watanabe] would conclude that MRS
$ 8028-3 required the circuit court to "vacate the judgment”
and permit Sorino to withdraw his no-contest. plea

 

 

 

 

 

 

op. at 3. Judge Watanabe also asserted that

(t]he majority overlooks the circuit court’s failure to
comply with HRS § 8026-2 and WAPP Rule 11(c) (5) by relying
fon the fact that Sorino read the advisement on a preprinted
written change of plea form. This written advisement.
however, did not satisfy ERs € 4028-2 because St was Dot

Ss cuise, the written edvisenant did not

gatiaiy HAPP Rule 11(c1(5) in chat it was not nade
Spersonally in-open court(.l" gee MRPP Rule Ii(c) (9).
‘Bh othersise gufficient advisement contained in
written change of plea form does not meet the expres!
Fequirenents of HRS § B02E-2.
Eender meaningless the Leisiature's comand that “the court
shell adninteter the following sdvicenent' on the Fecord to
he dafendantll= Rs § e02n-2.

 

Ida, slip op. at 6-7. Based, inter alia, on the foregoing
reasons, Judge Watanabe stated that she would have held “that
Sorino was entitled to the remedy provided by HRS § 8025-3.”
Ida, slip op. at 10.

on July 28, 2005, Sorino timely filed his application

for writ of certiorari.

an, VIEW

Appeals from the ICA are governed by HRS $ 602-59(b)
(1993)," which prescribes that

 

fan application for writ of certiorari shall tersely

9
‘### FOR PUBLICATION ##*

state its grounds which must include (1) grave errors
Of law of of fact, or (2) obvious inconsistencies in
the decision of the intermediate appellate court with
that of the supreme court, federal decisions, oF its
own decision, and the magnitude of such erro.

Inconsistencies dictating the need for further

Ante Jane Doe, Born on June 20, 1995, 95 Hawai'i 183, 189, 20
P.3d 616, 622 (2001).

 

    

1.

   

IIT. DISCUSSION

‘As we have noted, Sorino contends in his application:
(2) that “(t}ne majority of the ICA gravely erred by affirming
ide]

 

the circuit court's order denying the motion [to set
because the circuit court failed to comply with the plain,
unambiguous and explicit meaning of HRS § 8028-2,” see supra note
1; and (2) that “[t]he majority opinion of the ICA is also
obviously inconsistent with this [clourt’s decision in (Nauven].””
We agree and further note that the ICA majority has reached a
result that is inconsistent with its own reasoning.
vitihe interpretation of a statute. .
Sa @ question of Inv reviewable ae nove.”
iAcang, 04 Hawai't 1, 10, 920 fad #43,

(T3s6) (quoting state 'v. Camera, 81 Hawat's 324,
329, 916 F.2d 1225, 1230 (1996) (citations

 

 

 

    

onitted)).” Seq alge State v. Tovemura, 60
Hawai'i 8, 16, 904 P-2d 893, 903 (1995)7 state
weniiga, "79 Hawai't i, 3, 807 P.24 928, 990.
(3995); state vs Nakata, 76 Hawai'i 360, 365,

878 F.2d 699, 708 (1994). .
Gray vi Adninistestive Dizector of the court, 64 Hawai'i

158, 144, 931 P.24 580, $86 (1997) (sone brackets sdded and

sone in Original). See also State v. sete, 64 Hawa! 229,
236, 933 F.2d 66, 73 (1997). Furthermore, our statutory
Construction is guided by established cull

 

 

certain and aive effect to the 2
Jegislature, whi bs

She Language contained in the atetute itself. And we
must read statutory language in the contest of the
sntire statute ond construe it in a manner consistent
sith its purpose.

Gray, 84 Hawai‘i at 148, 931 P.24 at $90 (quoting State v.
Toyomura, 60 Hawai's 8, 18-19, 904 P.2d 893, 903-04 (1995)]
(brackets and ellipsis pointe in original) (footnote

   

10
#4 FOR PUBLICATION *##

omitted).
State v. Young, 107 Hawai'i 36, 39-40, 109 P.3d 677, 680-81
(2005) (quoting State v. Kaua, 102 Hawai'i 1, 7-8, 72 P.3d 473,
479-480 (2003) (quoting State v. Rauch, 94 Hawai'i 315, 322-23,
13 P.3d 324, 331-32 (2000) (quoting State v. Kotis, 91 Hawai‘
319, 327, 984 P.2d 78, 86 (1999) (quoting State v. Dudoit, 90
Hawas't 262, 266, 978 P.2d 700, 704 (1999) (quoting State vs
Stocker, 90 Hawai'i @5, 90-91, 976 P.2d 399, 404-05 (1999)
(quoting Ho v. Leftwich, 88 Hawai'i 251, 256-57, 965 P.2d 793,
798-99 (1998) (quoting Korean Buddhist Dae Won Sa Temple vs
sullivan, 87 Hawai'i 217, 229-30, 953 P.2d 1315, 1327-28
(1998)))))1)) (emphasis added) .

‘The lynchpin of the ICA’s lead opinion lies in the
following reasoning: Notwithstanding that “the circuit court did
not recite [the HRS § 802E-2) advisement orally to Sorino,”
because “Sorino did state in open court, in response to an
inquiry from the circuit court, that he had read (the) advisement
with his attorney and understood it,” “under the standard set
forth in HRS § 8028-3, [see supra note 2,] Sorino’s motion (to
set aside] should have been denied.” ICA’s lead opinion, slip
op. at 11 (emphasis added). The “standard set forth in HRS
§ 8026-3” mandates, however, that the circuit court either
‘advise the defendant as required by [HRS] section 602E-2" or
‘vacate the judgment and permit the defendant to withdraw the
plea of . . . nolo contendere, and enter a plea of not guilty.”
In that connection, the plain language of HRS § 802E-2 states
that “the [circuit] court shall administer the... advisement
on the record to the defendant” (emphasis added), and, as noted
supra, the ICA's lead opinion concedes that the circuit court

a
‘*#* FOR PUBLICATION #44

failed to recite the advisement to Sorino. Thus, it defies logic
to hold that the circuit court’s inquiry as to whether Sorino had
read and understood the advisement somehow satisfied HRS § 8025-3
when HRS § 802E-3 requires compliance with HRS § 802E-2 (ice.,
the administration of the advisement on the record to Sorino).
Further to the foregoing, as we stated in Nouyen,

soze! 21) on 4

accent: Lea of 221

‘convictions ‘nay have the conseauences of deportanion,

rt Eo the laws of the United states
ined by section €0ZE-2 and the defenasnt
ctor eo

0 2 the nee:

fhe setendant of deportation, the court -shall-vecate
She tudament i" nes § BOE, st)

81 Hawai" at 288-89, 916 P.2d at 698-99 (emphases added)

 

(footnotes omitted).
The ICA's lead opinion therefore suffers from (1) a
grave error of law -~ by way of its failure to apply the plain
language of HRPP Rule 11(c) (5) and HRS $§ 802£-2 and 802E-3 --
and (2) obvious inconsistencies with (a) our decision in Nguyen

oning. In re Jane Doe, Born

and (b) the lead opinion’s ovn x

 

© ggIt if undisputed that, as noted in the ICA's lead opinion, slip
op. at 4, for purposes of HRS § 802E"3, Sorino's conviction of the offense
tezroristic threatening in the first degree “may have the consequence|) for
[Sorino] . . . of deportation «+ ss” line § 8021

  

Tt is noteworthy that, in addition to characterizing the
Provisions of HRS §§ 8025-2 and 802E"3, Nauven observed that *HAEP Rule
11(c) (5S) alse requires courts to determine that such defendants understand the
collateral consequence of possible deportation.” 1 Hawaii at 288, S16 faa
at 698 (enphasis added) (footnote omitted). In other words, not only are
courts required to adninister the HRS § 0038-2 advisenent to defendsnte, but
courts mist also ensure that such defendants understand the advisement, [de

In the present matter, the circuit court failed to administer che HAE

$ #026-2 edvisenent to Sorino. Thus, the circuit court's query as co whether
Sorino had read and understood the change of plea form in sts entirety failed
te satisfy HRFP Rule 11(c) (5) because, per Nauven, the recitation of vhe
advisement prior to the circuit court’s determinacion as to whecher the
defendant understands the advisement 1s required.

 

 

 

a2
 

FOR PUBLICATION *#*
on June 20, 1995, 95 Hawai'i at 189, 20 P.3d at 622, We hold,
consonant with our reasoning in Nauyen, that Sorino is entitled
to the protections of HRS §§ 802E-2 and 802E-3, as well as HRPP
Rule 11(c) (5).

IV. CONCLUSION

In Light of the foregoing analysis, we (1) reverse the
ICA's opinion, (2) vacate the July 2, 2003 circuit court order
denying Sorino’s April 8, 2003 motion to set aside, and (3)
pursuant to HRS § 802E-3, see supra note 2, remand this matter
with instructions to the circuit court (a) to vacate the
Judgment, (b) to permit Sorino to withdraw his no contest plea
and enter a plea of not guilty, and (c) to conduct further
Proceedings consistent with this opinion.

On the applicatio:

cynthia A. Kagiwada,
for defendant-appellant-
petitioner Gerven Sorino

BAM Lrnce—

 

Deveetee CT cele 4 rree

ak

aren «. Dubs the

3