Case Title: State v. Lathrop

Citation: 

Docket Number: caap-15-0000385

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2016-06-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-15-0000385
29-JUN-2016
08:42 AM
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER.

(RO); and (2) failed to present evidence that Lathrop did not
understand the terms of the TRO.”

Lathrop bears the burden of establishing that his trial
counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel. State w.
Antone, 62 Haw. 346, 348, 615 P.2d 101, 104 (1980). To meet this
burden, Lathrop must satisfy the following two-part test: (1) he
"must establish specific errors or omissions of [his trial]
counsel reflecting counsel's lack of skill, judgment or
diligence"; and (2) he “must establish that these errors or
omissions resulted in either the withdrawal or substantial
impairment of a potentially meritorious defense." Id, at 348-49;
615 P.2d at 104.

As explained below, we conclude that Lathrop has failed
in this appeal to meet his burden of establishing that his trial
counsel provided ineffective assistance, and we therefore affirm
the District Court's Judgment.

I.
We resolve Lathrop's arguments on appeal as follows:
1. Lathrop does not provide any basis for believing

that his trial counsel did not know the elements necessary to
Prove the offense of violating a TRO before Lathrop's trial.
Lathrop suggests that his counsel did not know the mens rea
required to prove a criminal violation of a TRO. However, the
record demonstrates that Lathrop's trial counsel clearly knew
that the prosecution was required to prove that Lathrop acted
intentionally or knowingly in violating the TRO. we conclude
that Lathrop's contention that his trial counsel failed to learn
the elements of the TRO offense before trial is without merit,
and we therefore reject his claim of ineffective assistance that
is premised on that contention.

2. Lathrop argues that his trial counsel was
ineffective for failing to present evidence that Lathrop did not

 
 

n appeal do not challenge his conviction for
fand wo therefore do not address this conviction.

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAT'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

understand the terms of the TRO, He suggests that trial counsel
should have presented evidence “such as testimony from Defendant-
Appellant Lathrop that he had not read the TRO after being served
with it, or similar testimony from one of the other people
present when Defendant-Appellant Lathrop was served [with the
‘TRO}."

‘The record shows that Lathrop's trial counsel did
elicit testimony in support of a defense that Lathrop did not
knowingly violate the TRO. At trial, defense counsel elicited
testimony from Richard Rose (Rose), the person who served the TRO
on Lathrop, that Rose did not read the TRO to Lathrop and that
Lathrop did not sign the TRO because Lathrop was occupied
cleaning fish with some other people when the TRO was served. In
addition, evidence was presented through Officer Coley Rowe
(Officer Rowe), who contacted Lathrop in response to complaints
that he had violated the TRO, that Lathrop said he did not know
that the TRO was in effect. Officer Rowe testified on direct
examination by the prosecution that Lathrop said the person who
served him with the TRO had not explained what it was and that
Lathrop assumed that the TRO did not go into effect until nis
court date (which had not yet taken place). On cross~
examination, defense counsel elicited teatimony from Officer Rowe
that Lathrop said the "(TRO] was not explained to him and that he
did not think it was in effect until his court date. "”

Although Lathrop argues that his trial counsel was
ineffective for failing to introduce additional testimony to
support his lack-of-knowledge defense, he fails to provide

 

1ai/Qn the other handy the prosecution presented evidence fron the
coaplaining witnesses that shortly after the TO was served on Lathrop,

sd the complaining witnosses in separate incidents at Or near

‘of the complaining

fd’ that the TAO was "worthless," that 1 was
ining order dosen't mean shit to me." The
inted evidence that Lathrop violated the terms of the TRO
eter he was told by one of the conplaining witnesses that the TRO was "in
ettect,™ that Lathrop had to leave the complaining witness elone, and that the
complaining witness was calling the police and (2) after the other complaining
Withess told Lathrop that Lathrop was not supposed to be there because the
Complaining witnesses had 2 resteaining order against him

3

   
  
  

 

 

 

      

 

 

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

reliable evidence of what specific testimony was available. see
State v. Richie, 88 Hawai'i 19, 39, 960 P.2d 1227, 1247 (1998)
("Ineffective assistance of counsel claims based on the failure
to obtain witnesses must be supported by affidavits or eworn
statements describing the testimony of the proffered
witnesses."). For example, the record does not include
affidavits describing the proffered testimony of those present
when Lathrop was served with the TRO. The record also does not
contain an affidavit or other reliable evidence specifically
describing what Lathrop would have said if asked about his
understanding of the TRO when he testified at trial. Moreover,
the record does not contain Lathrop's trial counsel's explanation
for not directly questioning Lathrop on this subject. Prior to
Lathrop's testimony, evidence had already been introduced to
support a lack-of-knowledge defense. There may have been
strategic or other reasons for defense counsel to avoid
questioning Lathrop about his understanding of the terms of the
TRO.

Based on the existing record, we conclude that Lathrop
has failed to satisfy his burden of establishing that his trial
counsel provided ineffective assistance. We therefore affirm the
District Court's Judgment. We note, however, that substitute
counsel was not appointed for Lathrop until after the notice of
appeal was filed and this case was already pending on appeal.
‘Thus, it does not appear that Lathrop had a fair opportunity to
develop a record to support hie claim of ineffective assistance
of counsel. Accordingly, our decision to deny Lathrop's claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel is without prejudice to Lathrop
raising an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on a more
developed record in a subsequent proceeding under Hawai'i Rules
of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 40. See State v, Silva, 75 Haw.
419, 439, 864 P.2d 583, 592-93 (1993).

In.

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the District

Court's Judgment without prejudice to Lathrop filing a petition

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

under HRPP Rule 40 that raises a claim of ineffective assistance
of counsel.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, June 29, 2016.

on the briefs:

Robert Curtis chief Judge
(Law Office of Robert
curtis) a
for Defendant-Appellant

AsstAiee
Dale Yamada Ross
First Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Linda L. Walton
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney sof fac gy Ti
County of Hawai'i
for Plaintiff-Appellee