Case Title: State v. Legro

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2006-08-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
NOT_FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER **
No. 25914
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'T

STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee,

JAMES LEGRO, Defendant-Appeliant.

 

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
(CASE NUMBER 5P103-166 & 257432MK)

un
Moon, C.J-, Levinson, Nakayama, and Duffy, JJ.

(By:
Ju, concurring in the result only)

‘and Acoba,
befendant-Appellant, James E. Legro [hereinafter
suegro”] appeals from the district court’s? May 16, 2003 judgment

convicting him of the offenses of (1) failing to carry no-fault
insurance, in violation of Hawai'i Revised Statutes [hereinafter

srs”) § 431:10C-104 (Supp. 2001),? and (2) criminal contempt of

 

+ the Honorable Joseph Kobayashi presias

 

follows:

 

2 RS § 431:100-104 provides

104 Conditions of operation and registration of
Encepe as provided in section €31:10C-105,
‘ele upon any public
veh

‘s431:10¢
motor Vehicles. (a)
Fo peresn shall operate or use 2 motor vehi
Fe eee roads or Aighway of enie State at any tine unley
ESESENehiete is insured at all tines under 2 motor vehicle

Tneurance poliey-

NE Peery ouner of a motor vehicle used or operated at any
time upen any peblic street, road, oF highwey of this State shail
SothunPe"norer' vehicle insurance policy upon such vehicle which
secede: the coverage required by this article end shall maintase
Phe moter vehicle insurance policy at all tines for the entire
notor vehicle registration peried,

We iy iparacn who vaclates the provisions of this section
anei Le’ supjdee to che provisions of section 432:10C-117 (a)

iS) “Ene provisions of this article shall not apply to any
venicle emned by of registered in the nane of any agency of the
federal government, of te any antique motor vehicle as defined in
section 249¢1

 

 

 

qaqa
 

1+ NOT_FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER,

 

court, in violation of HRS $ 710-1077(g) (1993).? On appeal,
Legro contends that the district court committed plain error by
failing to suppress evidence that was obtained via an illegal
traffic stop.

upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to
the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we hold that Legro
failed to preserve his argument for appeal. Legro admits, and
the record likewise indicates, that he failed to object to the

admission of the evidence that he now contends were the “fruits”

of an illegal search and seizure. See Querubin v. Thronas, 107
Hawai'i 48, 61 n.5, 109 P.3d 689, 702 n.S (2008) ("*[T]he rule in
this jurisdiction . . . prohibits an appellant from complaining

for the first time on appeal of error to which he has acquiesced
or to which he failed to object./”) (Citing Qkuhara v. Broida,
51 Haw. 253, 255, 456 P.2d 228, 230 (1969) (citations omitted) .)
(Brackets in original.) (Ellipses in original.); State v. Vliet,
81 Hawai'i 288, 299, 983 P.2d 189, 200 (1999) (“A complete
failure to object will waive the point.”); State v. Corpuz, 3
Haw.App. 206, 211, 646 P.2d 976, 980 (1982) ("The general rule is
that a reviewing court will not consider issues not raised before
the trial court.”). Furthermore, insofar as Legro openly
admitted at trial that he was driving without no-fault insurance,
we fail to perceive any prejudice to Legro’s substantial rights
that would justify invocation of the plain error doctrine. See
State vi Staley, 91 Hawai'i 275, 282, 982 P.2d 904, 911 (1999)

+ as $ 720-1077 (2) (g) provides that “(a) person commits the offense
Impt of court if... [t]he person knowingly cisobeys or
Sngunction, or other mandate of « court.]”

    

2
+ NOT_FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER **
(We may recognize plain error when the error committed affects
substantial rights of the defendant.”) (Citing State v. Cullen,
86 Hawai'i 1, 8, 946 P.2d 955, 962 (1977).).¢

Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment from which the
appeal is taken is affirmed.

DATED:

on the briefs: g Yy -

Steven R. Nichols, Henson

deputy public defender,
for defendant-appellant

Honolulu, Hawai'i, August 25, 2006.

 

James Legro Nesta Cobumerare
Tracy Morakani,
deputy prosecuting attorney, Yan e Dutt:

for plaitniff-appellee
State of Hawai'i

CONCURRENCE BY ACOBA, J.

Pm

I concur in the result only.

 

« aegro offers no argunent or rationale justifying reversal of his
conviction of criminal contenpt of court. He has thus waived the right to
Challenge that conviction. See #awei's ules of Appellate Proceauve mule
eid) (4) (2003) ("Pointe not presented . . will be dieregarded(.]")-