Case Title: State v. Chung

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2005-05-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
#4 MoT FOR PUBLICATION ***

  

No. 26379

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAT'E=I3
GEATE OF HAWAT'E, Plaintssf-Rppediee,
NATHAN KINO CHUNG, Defendant-Appellant.
TT

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT
(CR. NO. 02-1-0590(2))

‘SUMMARY DISROSITION ORDER
(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.)

‘The defendant-appellant Nathan Kimo Chung appeals from
the judgment of the circuit court of the second circuit, the
Honorable Shackley F. Raffetto presiding, filed on January 8,

 

2004, convicting him of and sentencing him for five counts of
terroristic threatening in the first degree, in violation of
Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) $§ 707-716(1) (a) and (2) (@)

(1993), and one count of terroristic threatening in the second
degree, in violation of HRS § 707-717(2) (1993). Chung’s sole
contention on appeal is that the circuit court unconstitutionally
sentenced him to a one-year term of imprisonment based upon
uncharged misconduct alleged by the prosecution and witnesses at

well as information contained in his

 

the sentencing hearing
presentence investigation report.

upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to
the argunents advanced and the issues raised, we affirm the

judgment and sentence of the circuit court.

qa
‘### NOT FOR PUBLICATION *#*
“In determining the particular sentence to be imposed,
‘the court must consider a variety of factors [enumerated in HRS
§ 106-606 [(1993)}] in exercising its discretion in fitting the
punishment to the crime ‘as well as the needs of the individual
defendant and the community.’” State v. Nunes, 72 Hawai'i 521,
524-25, 824 P.2d 837, 839 (1992) (quoting State v. Kumukau, 71
Haw. 218, 225, 787 P.2d 682, 687 (1990)) (footnote omitted) (some
brackets added and some in original). “This court has held that
a sentencing court ‘is not limited to any particular source of
information in considering the sentence to be imposed upon a
defendant." State v. Kahawai, 103 Hawai'i 462, 465, 83 P.3d
725, 728 (2004) (quoting State v. Murphy, 59 Haw. 1, 21, 575 P.2d
448, 461 (1978)). See also HRS § 706-601 (1993 & Supp. 2004);
HRS § 706-602 (1993 & Supp. 2004); and HRS § 706-604(3) (1993).
‘There ie no indication in the record that the circuit
court erroneously considered any uncharged conduct in imposing
Chung’s sentence. Contra Nunes, 72 Hawai'i 521, 824 P.2d 8377
State v, Vellina, 106 Hawai'i 441, 106 P.3d 364, 373 (2005); and
‘State v. Koch, No. 26296, slip op. at 20 (May 9, 2005). Indeed,
the circuit court’s sentences were lenient, considering that
Chung pled guilty to, inter alia, five counts of first-degree
terroristic threatening, class C felonies subject to five-year
indeterminate maximum terms of imprisonment. Chung was certainly
not entitled to probation without a term of imprisonment, and it

was within the circuit court’s discretion to

 

ntence Chung to
probation, subject to a one-year term of imprisonment as a

special condition. See HRS § 706-624(2)(a) (1993). Moreover,
‘#4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

defense counsel conceded at sentencing that “(w]e expect some
level of jail to be imposed,” and Chung’s signed no contest plea
stated that the prosecution “may seek up to one year in jail.”
As such, the circuit court's sentence did not exceed the “bounds
of reason,” State v. Rauch, 94 Hawai'i 315, 322, 13 P.3d 324, 332
(2000) (citation omitted), and Chung’s “substantial rights,”
State v. Kamana‘o, 103 Hawai'i 315, 319-20, 82 P.3d 401, 405-06
(2003) (citation omitted), were not affected. Therefore,

IT 18 HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment and sentence of
the circuit court is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai"i, May 27, 2005.

 

on the brief:

Arleen Y. Watanabe, Yi

Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,

for the plaintiff-appellee Scatp lernem
State of Hawai'i
Brian J. De Lima, Niece Coed

for the defendant-appellant
Nathan Kimo Chung