Case Title: State v. Tokunaga

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2005-06-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
*** NOTFOR PUBLICATION ***

NO. 24843

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'T
SS
STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellant,

~ NAP S082

SYDNEY TOKUNAGA, Defendant -Appellee

  

6 |
aay

APPEAL Pow THE FIRST crecurT cour
(CR. NO. 01-12-1172)

”

Dus
Moon, C.J., Levinson, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.
Nakayama, J., Dissenting)

    

 

Plaintiff-appellant State of Hawai'i (hereinafter, the
prosecution] appeals from the first circuit court’s' December 17,

2001 order dismissing the charge of attempted assault in the
on

 

second degree against defendant-appellee Sydney Tokunag:
appeal, the prosecution contends that the circuit court erred in
(2) finding that there was no rational basis in the evidence to
submit the charge of attempted assault in the second degree to

the jury and (2) concluding that retrial on the attempted assault
As such, the

 

Jeopardy clau

 

charge was barred by the doubl
Prosecution requests that this court reverse the trial court’s

order dismissing the attempted assault charge, vacate Tokunaga’s

 

ded over the matter at 4

 

1 The Honorable Richard K. Perkine pr
on appeal

 
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

plea to assault in the third degree, and remand this case for a

new trial on the attempted assault charge.
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 the

instant appeal is moot.

Ie! is well-settled that the mootness doctrine
encompasses the circumstances that destroy the
Justiciability of a case previously suitable for
Getermination, “A case is moot where the question to
be determined is abstract and doce not rest on
existing facts or rights. Thus, the moctnese doctrine
So properly invoked where events have eo affected
relations between the parties that the two condstions
for justiciability -- adverse interest and effective
renedy =~ have besn compromised.

   

 

 

State v. Fukusaku, 85 Hawai'i 462, 475, 946 P.2d 32, 45 (1997)
(citations omitted). Although neither party raises a
jurisdictional iseue in the instant appeal, “[aln appellate court
has . . . an independent obligation to ensure jurisdiction over

each case and to dismiss the appeal gua sponte if a

jurisdictional defect exists.” State v. Graybeard, 93 Hawai'i
$13, 516, 6 P.3d 385, 388 (App. 2000) (citing Bacon v. Karlin, 66
Haw. 648, 650, 727 P.2d 1227, 1129 (1986). “Courts will not

consume time deciding abstract propositions of law or moot cases,
and have no jurisdiction to do so.” Territory v. Aldridge, 35
Haw. 565, 568 (1940).

An adverse interest arose between the prosecution and
defense when the prosecution sought to convict Tokunaga of

assault, attempted assault, or assault in the third degree as a

 
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

Se

lesser included offense for his conduct on July 13, 2001,
However, the adverse interest was compromised when, without
objection by the prosecution, Tokunaga pled guilty to assault in
the third degree on December 6, 2002. By obtaining a conviction
for the lesser included offense, the prosecution was barred from
re-trying Tokunaga on the greater offenses by the double jeopardy
clause.? See State v, Brantley, 99 Hawai'i 463, 473, se P.3a
1252, 1261 (2002) (holding that the double jeopardy clause
Prohibits the prosecution from trying a defendant for a greater
offense after it has convicted him of a lesser included offense) .
With respect to effective remedy, we recognize that the
Prosecution‘s appeal from the December 17, 2001 order dismissing

ult charge is proper under HRS § 641-13 (1)

 

the attempted a
(2993).” However, inasmuch as HRS § 641-13 does not permit the
Prosecution to appeal a judgment entered pursuant to a plea of
Ro-contest, the December 14, 2001 judgment is not appealable.
Thus, thie court lacks jurisdiction to vacate the December 14,
2001 judgment. Consequently, Tokunaga’s conviction of assault in
the third degree must stand, and this court is prohibited by the
double jeopardy clause trom ordering a retrial on the attempted

2 cots without the conviction on the lesser included offense,

Tokunaga could not be retried for the assault charge inasmuch as the jury
unanimously found that he was not guilty of thie offense

   

> cpenAithough HRS § 641-13(1) provides that appeals by the pro
tay be taken fron Yan order’. . . sustaining a gation to diseiee eee
count [of an indictment) (emphasis addea), this cout held in state v,\
Booking that, “(al lthough the order [entered by the court, gus Sathts”
Gienissing the proaect ‘wes not entered in response toa Eation, it
x appealable under MRE $ G41-13(3)." 97 Hast aes,
1, 40P.34 507, 812 (exphasis added)

 

    

 
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

 

assault charge. See Brantley, 99 Hawai'i at 473, 56 P.3é at

 

1261. Given the foregoing and notwithstanding the fact that the

December 17, 2001 order is appealable, this court cannot grant

 

the prosecution an effective remedy for its appeal from that
order. Therefore, inasmuch as the two conditions of
justiciability have been compromised,

IT 18 HEREBY ORDERED that the prosecution's appeal from

the circuit court’s December 17, 2001 order is dismissed with

 

prejudice as moot.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, June 7, 2005.

on the briefs: Gy
Loren J. Thomas, Deputy

Prosecuting Attorney Ble Aikcine

for plaintiff-appellant

Mary Ann Barnard, OD NC

for defendant-appellee Foran s Radish