Title: State v. Paaluhi

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

768 P.2d 235 (1989) STATE of Hawaii, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Earl Leilani PAALUHI, Defendant-Appellee. No. 12828. Supreme Court of Hawaii. February 9, 1989. Vickie L. Silberstein, Deputy Pros. Atty., Honolulu, for plaintiff-appellant. Mary Helen Wong (Daniel Pagliarini and Linda C. Ramirez, on the brief), Deputies of the Public Defender, Honolulu, for defendant-appellee. Before LUM, C.J., and NAKAMURA, PADGETT, HAYASHI and WAKATSUKI, JJ. HAYASHI, Justice. Plaintiff-Appellant State of Hawaii (hereinafter "State") appeals the judgment sentencing Defendant-Appellee Earl Leilani Paaluhi (hereinafter "Paaluhi") to a $300 fine for three counts of driving without no-fault insurance pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes (hereinafter "HRS") §§ 294-8 and 294-39.[1] Paaluhi had committed *236 the offenses at different times but was convicted plus sentenced for all three violations on the same day. State contends that 1) Paaluhi was a multiple offender; so 2) the trial court erred by not imposing the more severe, mandatory multiple offender penalties. We agree, therefore vacate the sentence, and remand the case for resentencing. No facts are disputed. On February 11, 1988 pursuant to plea bargaining, Paaluhi pled guilty to six counts of driving without a license (HRS § 286-102), two counts of driving under the influence of alcohol (HRS § 291-4(a)), one count of contempt of court (HRS § 710-1077), and the three no-fault insurance violation counts. Paaluhi perpetrated the last three offenses on September 28, 1982, October 26, 1985, and December 12, 1987. After the trial court had accepted Paaluhi's guilty pleas, the following exchange occurred during the sentencing: Transcript of February 11, 1988 at 12-13 (emphasis added). The judgment was entered, and State subsequently appealed pursuant to HRS § 641-13(6) (Supp. 1988). Paaluhi has not cross-appealed. The sole issue on appeal is as follows: Whether the trial court erred by not imposing the multiple offender penalties on Paaluhi? YES. We thus need not address the other contentions raised by Paaluhi. State maintains that, under HRS § 294-39, Paaluhi was a multiple offender *237 who had to be subjected to the enhanced sentencing penalties. Paaluhi counters that 1) the trial court imposed a legal sentence; so 2) State has no basis to appeal. Although this court has rejected an approach to statutory construction which is limited to the words of the statute, it is still fundamental that the statutory language is the starting point for any interpretation which 1) must be consistent with the legislative purpose; and 2) cannot contradict the plain and obvious meaning of the law. State v. Oshiro, 69 Haw. ___, 746 P.2d 568 (1987); see State v. Avilla, 69 Haw. ___, 750 P.2d 78 (1988) (per curiam).[2] HRS § 294-39 (1975) reads in relevant part (emphasis added): By contrast, HRS § 294-39 (1985) provides in pertinent part (emphasis added): Finally, HRS § 294-39 (1987) states in important part (emphasis added): Here, Paaluhi pled guilty, was convicted, and was sentenced on the same day for three different offenses which had occurred at three separate times. Furthermore, there exists no dispute that he had committed these violations. See State v. Apuna, 3 Haw. App. 673, 657 P.2d 1062 (1983). The trial court, however, relied on State v. Ahakuelo, 5 Haw. App. 205, 683 P.2d 400 (1984), where the defendant had been charged with driving under the influence of alcohol on February 15, 1983 plus February 16, 1983, was convicted on both counts in the same proceeding, was sentenced as a first offender for the February 15, 1983 charge, but was subjected to the enhanced sentencing provisions for the February 16, 1983 charge. The Intermediate Court of Appeals vacated the enhanced sentencing and remanded the case for resentencing by opining that: Id. at 207-08, 683 P.2d at 403 (emphasis added and footnotes omitted). The different language in HRS §§ 291-4 and 294-39, however, makes the Ahakuelo rationale inapplicable to the instant action. HRS § 294-39 clearly recites that the commission of more than one offense necessitates the multiple offender penalties. Cf. State v. Akana, 68 Haw. ___, 706 P.2d 1300 (1985). By comparison, for purposes of the repeat offender sentencing statutes defining "conviction" (HRS §§ 706-606.5(1) plus 706-666(1)), a defendant who committed different crimes a month apart, was charged in separate indictments, was found guilty in separate trials on each offense, but was sentenced for both crimes on the same day, had two convictions, so was a repeat offender. State v. Rodrigues, 68 Haw. ___, 706 P.2d 1293 (1985). But, convictions on both counts of one indictment are considered a single conviction. State v. Tavares, 63 Haw. 509, 630 P.2d 633 (1981). The situation in the present case initially appears more similar to Tavares, but the only reason why all the various offenses were heard together by the trial court is *239 because Paaluhi had previously refused to show up for trial when required. As State accurately complains, adopting Paaluhi's position "would reward [him] for failing to report to court on the first citation, and treat him as a first offender when he finally appears in court on three successive multiple violations." Opening Brief at 10. This is not what the legislature had intended. See State v. Himuro, 70 Haw. ___, 761 P.2d 1148 (1988). Rodrigues, by contrast, is the more appropriate precedent. Paaluhi was convicted for three separate violations occurring in different years. Accordingly, the trial court should have given the mandatory, enhanced sentencing penalties established by the legislature. See State v. Johnson, 68 Haw. ___, 711 P.2d 1295 (1985). Although the Ahakuelo logic seems appealing, the trial court was required to sentence Paaluhi as a multiple offender (discretion, however, still existed on what combination of punishments might be imposed). See State v. Scott, 69 Haw. ___, 746 P.2d 976 (1987). Based on the above reasoning, the language of HRS § 294-39, plus the specific facts of this controversy, see State v. Moniz, 69 Haw. ___, 742 P.2d 373 (1987), the sentence is vacated, and the case is remanded for resentencing consistent with this opinion. See State v. Baroza, 68 Haw. ___, 706 P.2d 1304 (1985). [1] HRS § 294-8 (1985) reads (emphasis added): Conditions of operation and registration. (a)(1) No person shall operate or use a motor vehicle upon any public street, road, or highway of this State at any time unless such motor vehicle is insured at all times under a no-fault policy. Every owner of a motor vehicle used or operated at any time upon any public street, road, or highway of this State shall obtain a no-fault policy upon such vehicle which provides the coverage required by this chapter and shall maintain the no-fault policy at all times for the entire motor vehicle registration period. (2) The requirements of this subsection may be satisfied by any owner of a motor vehicle if: (A) Such owner provides a surety bond, proof of qualifications as a self-insurer, or other securities affording security substantially equivalent to that afforded under a no-fault policy, providing coverage at all times for the entire motor vehicle registration period, as determined and approved by the commissioner under regulations, and (B) The commissioner is satisfied that in case of injury or death or property damage, any claimant would have the same rights against such owner as the claimant would have had if a no-fault policy had been applicable to such vehicle. (b) Any person who violates the provisions of subsection (a) shall be subject to the provisions of subsection 294-39(a). (c) The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to any vehicle owned by or registered in the name of any agency of the federal government. HRS § 294-39 will be described infra. [2] Because Paaluhi had committed the offenses in three separate years, the September 28, 1982 offense was subject to the 1975 version of HRS § 294-39, the October 26, 1985 incident came under the 1985 law, while the December 12, 1987 violation fell within the 1987 statute.