Case Title: Fanelli v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: caap-13-0000093

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2014-04-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-13-0000093
17-APR-2014
08:18 AM
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
(3) his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance;

(4) prosecutorial misconduct .*

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to
the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties, as
well as the relevant statutory and case law, we conclude
Fanelli's appeal is without merit.

Ae a general rule, a hearing should be held on a
lugpe} “Rule 0 petition for post-conviction relief where the
petition states a colorable claim. To establish a colorable
Glaim, ‘the allegations of the petition must show that if
Eaken' as true the facts alleged would change the verdict,
honever, a petitioner's conclusions need not be xegarded' as
Erue, here examination of the record of the trial court
proceedings indicates that the petitioner's allegations show
Bo colorable claim, it is not error to deny the petition
‘Without a hearing.” The question on appeal of a denial of @
Rule 40 petition without a hearing se whether the trial
Fecord sndicates that Petitioner's application for relief
duade such @ showing of a coloreble claim as to require s
Hearing before the lower court

Barnett v. State, 91 Hawai'i 20, 26, 979 P.2d 1046, 1052 (1999)
(citations, brackets and ellipsis omitted).

Fanelli first contends that his HRPP Rule 40 petition
alleged a "colorable claim that he was incompetent to stand
trial[.]" "To establish a colorable claim, [an HRPP Rule 40]
petition must show that if taken as true the facts alleged would
change the verdict{.]" Dan v, State, 76 Hawai'i 423, 427, 879
P.2d 528, $32 (1994) (citation omitted). "Where examination of

 

 

 

2 panelli*g opening brief i noncompliant with Hawa" Rules of
Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 26 (b) (3) His opening brief fails to support
any of ite statenents Of fact with record references, and where referenc

thelr location in'the electronic record on
tention by ‘State of
Hawai'i (State) in ite motion to strike Panelii Although
this court dented the state's motion to strike, Fanelli's counsel is warned
that future noncompliance say Tesuit in sanction.

 

    
 

 

+ tn gupport of his contention, Fanelli cites Havaii Revised

Statutes (HRS) § 704-803 (1993), which provides!

$708-403 Physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect
excluding fitness to proceed. Ho person who as a result af a payeical
Sr pental disease, disorder, or defect lacks capacity to undexstand the

 

   

a
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER.

the record of the trial court proceedings indicates that the
petitioner's allegations show no colorable claim, it is not error
to deny the petition without a hearing." zd. Fanelli alleged
the following facts in support of his HRPP Rule 40 petition: (1)
he received psychotropic medication to treat ongoing mental
diseases or defects; (2) he was refused medication on the morning
of his trial; (3) his mental state deteriorated and he became
agitated and confused during the trial; and (4) he argued with
his defense counsel.

Fanelli fails to establish a colorable claim that he
was incompetent to stand trial. A criminal defendant is legally
competent to proceed to trial if the defendant had: (1)
sufficient present ability to consult with their lawyer with a
reasonable degree of rational understanding; (2) the capacity to
assist in preparing their defense; and (3) rational as well as
factual understanding of the proceedings. See HRPP Rule 40(f)

and State v. Soares, 81 Hawai'i 332, 350-51, 916 P.2d 1233, 1251-
52 (App. 1996), overruled on other grounds by State v. Janto, 92

Hawai'i 19, 986 P.2d 306 (1999). The circuit court found, and
our review of the trial transcript indicates Fanelli's exchanges
with the circuit court were coherent and responsive; he had a
functional ability to work with his trial counsel and provide him
with information that could be used to present a coherent
defense; Fanelli provided coherent responses to the circuit
court's inquiries into his fundamental defense decisions, such as
whether to testify; and Fanelli appeared to withstand the
pressures of trial. Consequently, Fanelli fails to show that his
incompetency defense would change the verdict, because (1) the
alleged facts do not satisfy the test for incompetency, even when
taken as true; (2) the record indicates Fanelli is competant.
Fanelli's second contention is that his alleged
incompetence to stand trial due to his lack of medication was an
"appealable issue[;]" that his former appellate counsel Ben
Herren (Herren) failed to appeal, and thereby presenting a
colorable claim that Herren had provided ineffective assistance

 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER,

of counsel requiring the reversal of the circuit court's order
Denying HRPP Rule 40 Petition. Briones v. State, 74 Haw. 442,
465-66, 848 P.24 966, 977 (1993) ("An appealable issue is an
error or omission by counsel, judge, or jury resulting in the
withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious
defense.") (internal quotation marks omitted). An attorney's
failure to file an appeal, however, does not constitute
ineffective assistance of counsel per se. see Roe v
Elores-Orteaa, 528 U.S. 470, 478 (2000) abrogating Lozada v.
Deeds, 964 F.2d 956, 958 (9th Cir. 1992).

‘Taking ae true Fanelli's claim that Herren did not
timely appeal does not itself establish that he provided
ineffective counsel or that the verdict would change. see
Flores-ortega, 528 U.S. at 478 (where counsel consults with a
defendant about the advantages and disadvantages of taking an
appeal, and makes a reasonable effort to discover the defendant's
wishes, counsel perforns in a professionally unreasonable manner
only by failing to follow the defendant's express instructions
with respect to an appeal). Fanelli does not allege that he
expressly instructed Herren to file a direct appeal or that he
failed to consult with him on Herren's decision to not file the
appeal. Fanelli submitted to the circuit court a letter written
by Herren, which stated Herren did not find issues that could be
appropriately raised on appeal, explained this finding to
Fanelli, and Fanelli agreed to pursue the issues through further
introduction of evidence by filing an HRPP Rule 40 motion.
Fanelli's letters to the circuit court dated June 8, 2010, June
9, 2010, and July 7, 2010 indicated his int
REP Rule 40 petition and did not refer to any alleged "failure"
to file a direct appeal from the circuit court's judgment and
sentence. See Dan, 76 Hawai'i at 427, 879 P.2d at 532.

Fanelli's third contention that his HRPP Rule 40
petition presented colorable claims that his trial counsel was
ineffective also lacks merit. Fanelli points to no evidence
showing that acts or omissions by his trial counsel resulted in

 

tions to file an

 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAT'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially
meritorious defense. See Briones, 74 Haw. at 462-63, 848 P.2d at
976. His trial counsel's decision not to call Lieutenant Marks
(Marks) of the Maui Police Department to testify, had the
tactical benefit of excluding a witness to Fanelli's purported
"uncharged indicia of drug use[.]" Further, Marks’ potential
testimony that a glass pipe did not have Fanelli's fingerprints
on it would not have established a "meritorious defense" that
Fanelli had not touched other contraband in the truck. Id.
Fanelli's trial counsel elicited testimony from an essential
witness (Essential Witness) that she had a history of
methamphetamine drug use, contrary to Fanelli's contention that
his trial counsel failed to effectively interrogate the Essential
Witness as to her prior drug use. Fanelli also fails to support
his contention that his trial counsel impaired his defense by
failing to introduce into evidence a methamphetamine pipe and
photographs because Fanelli was not charged with possession of
the pipe

Fanelli's fourth contention is that the circuit court
ehould have granted hie ERPP Rule 40 petition based on his
allegations of prosecutorial misconduct. state v. Clark, 83
Hawai'i 289, 304, 926 P.2d 194, 209 (1996) (*Prosecutorial
migconduct warrants a new trial or the setting aside of a guilty
verdict only where the actions of the prosecutor have caused
prejudice to the defendant's rights in a fair trial.") (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). Fanelli contends the
State misled the circuit court by stating the Essential witness
and another witness had no drug convictions, but that the "whole
truth" is that their drug use was "well known despite the fact
that they did not yet have drug convictions on their record."
Fanelli provides no argument indicating how the State's alleged
misrepresentations could form the basis for a colorable claim
that would "change the verdict" and thus warrant relief under
RPP Rule 40. Barnett, 91 Hawai'i at 26, 979 P.2d at 1052.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

‘therefore,
XT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the January 29, 2013
“Bindings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and order Denying Petition
for Post-Conviction Relief Under HRPP Rule 40; i.e. Document
Entitled ‘Petition for Post-Conviction Relief to Vacate Judgment
and Release Petitioner From Custody'" entered in the Circuit
Court of the Second Circuit is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, April 17, 2014.
on the briefs: eh?
Gerald Johnson L whi
for Petitioner-Appellant. Presiding
Artemio C. Baxa
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

County of Maui
for Respondent -Appellee.

 

Associate Judge