Case Title: State v. Lanse

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2006-03-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***
No. 25376

IN TRE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee 2
vs. 3B

STEPHEN I. LANSE, Defendant-Appellant

 

APPEAL FROM THE SECOND crrcurT court S| &
(CR. NO, 98-0319) “ es

‘SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, and Nakayama, JJ.,
Circuit Judge Town, assigned by reason of vacancy,
‘and Acoba, J., concurring separately)

Defendant-appellant, Stephen I. Lanse (hereinafter
Lanse”), appeals from an August 29, 2002 order of the second
cireuit court denying his June 25, 2002 motion for
reconsideration of the denial of his previous motion for the
deferred acceptance of his no contest plea [hereinafter “DANCP
notion] to the charges of (1) promoting a dangerous drug in the

in violation of Hawai'i Revised Statutes

 

third degrs
[hereinafter “HRS”] § 712-1243(1) (1993)," (2) prohibited acts
related to drug paraphernalia, in violation of HRS § 329-43.5(a)
(1993),? and (3) promoting a detrimental drug in the third

 

HRs § 722-1243(1) provides that “(a) person connits the offe
1g 2 dangerous drug in the third degree if the person knowingly
2 any dangerous drug in any amount.”

 

Rs § 329-34,5(a) provides as follows

19329-43.5] Prohibited acte related to drug
(a) 1\ts unlautui for any person to use, oF to p
intent to use, drog paraphernalia to plant, propagate, cultivate,
grow, harvest, manufacture, compound, convert, produce, proc
Brepere, test, anelyze, pack, repack, Store, contain, concesl,
Unject, ingest, inhale, or otherwise introduce into the human body
a dontrolied substance in violstion of this chapter. Any person

         

qaqa
‘*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***
degree, in violation of HRS § 712-1249(1) (1993).’ On appeal,

Lanse essentially raises the following two arguments: (1) the

 

circuit court had the inherent power to entertain his motion for
reconsideration; and (2) there is no statutory prohibition on the
circuit court's exercise of its inherent power.

However, having carefully reviewed the record and the
briefs submitted by the parties and having given due
consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised,
we conclude that HRS § 641-11 does not authorize a criminal
defendant to appeal from the circuit court's denial of a motion
for reconsideration of a previous denial of a DANCP motion.*
Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the

appeal.* We note, however, that Lanse may, by filing a petition

 

who violates this section is guilty of a class C felony and upon
Conviction my be imprisoned pursuant to section 706-660 and, if
appropriate a3 provided in section 106-641, fined pursuant £0
section 706

 

 

 

> RS § 712-1249(1) provides that "[a) person commits the offense of
proncting a detrimental drug sn the third degree if the person knowingly
possesses any marijuana or any Schedule V sunstance in any amount.”

   

 

‘ uas § 641-11 provides ae follows

Any party deeming oneself aggrieved by the judament of a circuit
court ina crininal matter, may appeal to the supreme court,
Subject to chapter 602 in the aanner and within the time provided
by the Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure. The

 

ALL appeals,
Whether beara by the internediste appellate court or the suprene
Court, shail be filed with the clerk of the suprene court and
Shall'be subject to one {ling f

 

 

(empha

 

added.)

+ See State vs xalens, 87 Hawai's 260, 262, 953 P.2d 1956, 1359
(1988) ["-The rignt of appeal in 8 criminal case is purely statutory and
exists only when given by sone constitutional of statutory provision.©*)

 

 

(Quoting Skate v. Fulssaky, 82 Hawai's 462, 490, 946 P.2d 32, 60 (1337)
(quoting State v. Helis, 7 Hawai'i 373, 376, 694 F.2d 0, 73, cesansideration
denied, 78 Rawal 474,896 B.2d 930. (1995)).)

2
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

for post-conviction relief pursuant to Hawai'i Rules of Penal
Procedure [hereinafter “HRPP”] Rule 40 (2005), move to withdraw
his no contest plea in order to ameliorate any “manifest
injustice.” HRPP Rule 32(d) (2005). Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Lanse’s appeal is dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, March 8, 2006.
on the briefs:

Mark 8. Kawate Y
for defendant-appellant
Stephen 1. Lanse .

Arlen Y, Watanabe, Deputy

Prosecuting Attorney,

for plaintiff-appeliee Pests OD Nurcuey aren

State of Hawal't Ce
Nl Ka