Title: State v. Mikasa. ICA Opinion, filed 04/07/2006 [pdf], 110 Haw. 441. Consolidated with Nos. 25777 and 25778. S.Ct. Order Granting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 05/04/2006 [pdf], 110 Haw. 546.

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

LIBRARY

 

*##FOR PUBLICATION***

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

~00---

 

 

STATE OF HAWAI'I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee

(No. 25776 (CR. NO. 02-1-0090))

gl
SCOTT MIKASA, Petitioner /Defendant-Appe? Lage

 

00 zie S- Nr s002

 

STATE OF HAWAI'I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellt

SCOTT MIKASA, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant
(No. 25777 (CR. NO. 02-1-0498))

 

STATE OF HAWAI'I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee

SCOTT S. MIKASA, also known as “SQUIRRELY,”

Pet itioner/Defendant-Appel lant
(No. 25778 (CR. NO. 03-1-0036))

No. 25776
CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
JUNE 5, 2006

MOON, C.J, LEVINSON, NAKAYAMA, ACOBA, AND DUFFY, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY ACOBA, J.

We granted certiorari herein to clarity the application

by the Intermediate Court of Appeals (the ICA) of the law

aan
‘***FOR PUBLICATION***

 

relevant to a defendant’s claim that @ sentencing court relied on
an uncharged crime in imposing sentence. Petitioner/Defendant~
Appellant Scott Mikasa (Petitioner) filed an application for writ
of certiorari’ on April 28, 2006 (application), requesting that
this court review the published opinion of the ICA,* affirming
the March 24, 2003 amended judgments of conviction and sentences
of the second circuit court (the court)? entered in Cr. Nos. 02

1-0090(3) (Case 090), 02-1-0498(3) (Case 498), and 03-1-0036(3)

 

(Case 036). See State v. Mikasa, No. 25776, slip op. at 11-12,

 

17 (App. Apr. 7, 2006).
1

‘The relevant facts follow.

on February 22, 2002, Petitioner was charged by
indictment, as a principal or accomplice, in Case 090, with
(1) Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the First Degree under Hawai'i
Revised Statutes (HRS) § 712-1241(1) (a) (i) (2003) (Count 1),

Pursuant to Hawal's Revised Statutes (HRS) § 602-59 (Supp. 2005),
a party may appeal the decision of the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA)
Coly by an application to this court for a writ of certiorari.” gee HRS $ 602~

£3(a).. In determining whether to accept or reject the application for writ of
srtiorari, this coure reviews the Ick decision for:

 

 

(1) grave errors of Lew oF of fact, oF (2) obvious
insonsistencies in the decision of the intermediate
‘appellate court with that of the suprene court, federal
Gecisions, oF its oun decision, and the magnitude of such

rors or inconsistencies dictating the need for ferther
appeal.

 

 

HAS § 602-59(b). The grant or denial of @ petition for certiorari is
jssceetionary with this court. See ARS § 602-59 (8)

‘The opinion was authored by Associate Judge John $.W. Lim and was
aoines by Chief Judge Janes &. urns and Associate Judge Corinne K.A.
‘The Honorable Joseph E. Cardoza presided.

2
‘**#FOR PUBLICATION***

(2) Prohibited Acts Related to Drug Paraphernalia in violation of
HRS § 329-43.5(a) (1993) (Count II), (3) Attempted Promoting a
Dangerous Drug in the First Degree under HRS $§ 705-500 (1993)
and 712-1241 (a) (b) (44) (A) (2003) (Count 12), (4) two counts for
the offense of Promoting @ Detrimental Drug in the Third Degree
in violation of HRS § 712-1249(1) (4) (1993) (Counts IV and v),
and (5) Promoting 2 Controlled Substance, In, On, or Near Schools
in violation of HRS § 712-1249.6(1) (b) (2003) (Count VIII).
(Emphasis added.) Petitioner was also charged with Promoting @
Dangerous Drug in the First Degree under HRS § 712-1241(1) (d)
(2003) (Count VI), two counts of the offense of Prohibited Acts
Related to Drug Paraphernalia under HRS § 329-43.5(a) (Count VII
and X), and Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the Third begree in
violation of HRS § 712-1243(2) (2003) (Count IX).

On September 16, 2002, in Case 498, Petitioner was
charged by indictment with Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the
‘Third Degree in violation of HRS § 712-1243(1) (count 1),
Prohibited Acts Related to Drug Paraphernalia under HRS § 329-
43.5(a) (Count II), and Promoting a Detrimental Drug in the Third
Degree in violation of HRS § 712-1249(1) (Count 111).

On January 21, 2003, in Case 036, Petitioner was
charged by complaint with Promoting s Dangerous Drug in the First
Degree under HRS § 712-1241(2) (a) (I) (Count 1), and Prohibited
Acts Related to Drug Paraphernalia under HRS § 329-43.5(2) (Count

m.
‘***POR PUBLICATION*#+ .

on January 21, 2003, Respondent /Plaintiff-Appellee
State of Hawai'i (the prosecution) sent a plea offer to
Petitioner's counsel. The plea offer encompassed Cases 090, 498,
and 036 and discussed the sentence that could be imposed upon
petitioner. In relevant part, it stated:

4. The naninum tere the State nav argue for is tus

with a recommendation for &
Randatory mininon of fave (5) years prison:

St” Telel There are no other general or specific
agreenents a2 to sentencing;

Tr (Sica peesentence report will be requested.

 

 

He'43 nderstood that the above constitutes the full
and complete plea offer in this matter and that said plea
offer affects only those matters referenced above. No
Sasitional pronises, agreesents, or conditions, either
Gapressed of implied, nave been entered into other than
those set foren above

i'.2 "further understood that the sentence to be
Amposed upon the defendant if within the sole discretion of
the sentencing Judge, and that this department does not make
any promise of fepregentation as to what sentence the
Sefenaant will actually rece!

 

 

 

 

(Emphasis added.) On January 23, 2003, Petitioner entered his No

contest Plea. The No Contest Plea incorporated the plea offer

 

and provided in relevant part

6. Lunderstand that the court may impose anv of the
the maximum term of inprisonnent, any extended term of
Sxprlesamene, sey senditory mininun term of inprisornent

Li "testitution? 2 finey a fee and/or
Seserenent? community service? probation with up to one year
Of imprisonment and other cerns and conditions

@." [have not been promised any kind of deal or tavor of

 

hey by anvone Tor ay Dies, ss
‘Mua the covernment has screed as follow (Gf none, unite
ga
Sse com of January 214 2003 letter from carson Tani
‘The court nas sqreed to follow the oles
wseentge pursuant to-RuE 1

Exocegure.

(Emphases added. }
‘***FOR PUBLICATION*#*

‘The Pre-sentence Investigation Report (PIR) stated in

relevant part:

(Emphasis

‘The court

(ce. No. 02-1-0090(3)

‘tne police investigation reveals that on February 14, 2002,
Search Warrant #2002"36 was executed at 37 Kono Plact
Kehuius, 2 residence being occupied by (Appellant], Peter
Kenalii'[(Kanalit}], Jonathan Suesa [(Buesa)), Jason Bio and
Patrick Racadio, Search Narrant 2002-37 was executed upon
Scott Mikasa’s person st the seid location.

 

 

 

‘siche followings
Team #1: Twenty (20) 2iplock packets possessing crystal
ethamphetamine with the combined net weight of 2.20 ounces
Item #2: 29 grams of Marijuana

Iten $3: Nonezous clear plastic packets

Isentification of Mikasa and Ranalii were recovered from the
black bag.

A Search within a black bag that was next to Buesa resulted
in the recovery of the following

 

 

Item #1: Two (2) ziplock packets possessing suspected
cryatal methamphetamine with the combined net weight of 4,68
grams.

Teen #2: 08 net grams of marijuana

Item #3: Numerous clear plastia packets

Digital scales
51,280 in U.S. Currency
Ioentiication of Suess were recovered from within said bag.

 

ie’ a'régute of Search arrant_#2002-37, Mikase’s person was
Search. (8ic] 2:00 in cash, identification
of Mikass, ane

from his shorts pocket

 

 

 

added.)
The sentencing hearing took place on March 20, 2003.

acknowledged that it was aware of the plea agreement

and was in receipt of the PIR and a letter from Petitioner. In

part an undated letter from Petitioner that was addressed to the

court related the following:

My Grug addiction is the real reason that 1m hei
today. It’s true that I’m responsible for everything I'm
Charges with, but there are other facts to this case that I
Nould like £6 present before you pass sentence.

Crystal Bethanphetanine is my addiction. 1 am totally
addicted to this drug, and this drug alone. i don’t drink,
Snoke, or Go any other drug but ice

Everyday, all day. 2/7. T didn't have

    

Life. t08

 
‘***FOR PUBLICATION*#*

ee

wos my Life. Iwas powerless. I was not the type of “érug
Gea1et” that nost people would refer to as a “dealer,”
Betause what I did was the best way I knew for me to’ support
by drug hebit. I never did it for the money, or the girls,
the cage jewelry, oF anytning else. Iwas just an errend
boy. f picked up and I'delivered drugs and cash in retern
fet my onn peraonal supply. Aed as long as Thad my dope 7
es happy." dian'e make any soney for myself because 1
Gian'e want any. {Just wanted my dope. T've been in car
Gecidents becadse { fell asleep while driving because 1 was
Sp for days with no sleep. T'didn’t est, didn’t sleep, and
viet of tines T didn't even take a bath, Just noreal
Gveryeay things were non-existent. T didn't have friends
"Gide have a girlfriend. Ice was my girlfriend, my
feiend, my eneayy my mom, ny dad, ay everything.

ewes sickening. And T'couldn't stop. i knew it
wasn't good for me and that it would eventually destroy me,
bor 1 still couldn't stop. Ice had tetal control of the

ram's drug addict and 1 need help.

This iss very powerful and deadly drug.” If T'was released
Fight now T'would still proke ice. ‘eg how mich power it
hat on'ne-. I'm sorry for the things I've done, and, the
People I've hurt, I didn't mean to hurt anyone. I've been
Boing some soul-searching, but it’s still « little confusing
and unclear. There are a lot of things T can’t renenber
Ail T'tnow now is that even with the reality of facing
prison, ? still erave fer ice. T just can’t understand it

 

 

 

   

 

Petitioner’s counsel discussed Petitioner's struggles

with drug addiction and asked that any sentences imposed upon

Petitioner be served concurrently. The prosecution then argued

that Petitioner was “dealing” drugs to support his own drug habit

and had committed additional offenses while released on bail on

case 090:

[z)t's just too bed that the use by this defendant, 1 guess,
Inevitably escalated to dealing, because, as the court
keows, the only real way to support a abit Like
TFetitioner’s] ie to deal. Because, you knom, there is no
way you can come up with the ancunt of money that you need.

‘The probien with the dealing, your Honor, is that
dealing effects [sic] pretty much everybody in’ our
Senmunity, because shen you deal large amounts of
fmethasphetamine, coviously that promotes more drug use by
the users.

 

 

And hen [Petitioner was arrested, ne was released on
sil, “And then he commits another charge of Promoting =
Dangerous Drug in the Third Degree, but that's just @
Fesidue amount. And then while he’s still awaiting trial on
the initial coge in 0090, he’s arrested again with an even
Jaeger amount of methamphetamine, about 94- - a little over
96 grams of methamphetamine.

    

 

6
‘+**P0R PUBLICATION*+*

We are talking three and a half ounces of
wmetharphetamine, your Honor. Me’s also got about $8700 in
his pocket

‘Soul think it’s clear what [Petitioner] was doing in
0090, and 9036, which is, you know, just by the large
seounts [sic] of cash that was found on his and the larse
Snounts of methamphetamine that was found on his, ‘that it
Mes for distribution, your Honor”

The prosecution requested that the court sentence Petitioner to
two consecutive twenty year sentences.

The court discussed the allegations of dealing with the

 

prosecutior

‘THE COURT: If I'm reading [Petitioner's] letter, it
would Sppear that he is ~~ if I'm reading it correctly,
he’s conceded that he was dealing.

   

 

ine GobRT: . . . So sounds 1ike he is not taking seve
with that. I guess T'just coment on that because your
Drgument may suggest that there t¢ an issue about chat, but
{Oeounds ike that's not being ~~

TPROSECUTOR] No, your Honor. I didn't mean that to be
an isaues

‘THE COURT: ALL right.

Petitioner made a brief statement in which he stated that he
needed help to overcome his drug addiction.

‘The court then proceeded to address Petitioner and to
impose sentence. The court first stated that a term of
imprisonment would be imposed and then noted the “troubling”

nature of the facts of the case:

 

All right, [Petitioner], in looking at the facts of
this case, and considering the factors that the court must
consicer in = - that are set forth in Chapter 106 of the

{HRS}, it’s clear that the court should impose a ~ = a term
of imprisonment here. 50 that, in the coure’s view, iss
given he

But when I start to take @ hard look at the facts of
the case, this set of facts becones quite troubling

 

 

The court observed that the amount of drugs recovered from
Petitioner, when parceled out, could amount to over a thousand
uses of drugs by members of the community:

?
‘+*4FOR PUBLICATION*#*
OO

I've nad quite a few individuals cone into this courtroos
Who use crystal methamphetamine, and they will often say
that they dee, for example, a tenth of a gran to get high
‘and I don't know if you've thought about itvin these
terms, but if that's correct > = and 7 have heard enough
people say that to me with 58 grams, actually, more then
Phat, 2:2 ounces, nore than SB grans in one instance, and
Sone’ 0-plus grams in another instance ~~ I don't know if
you bave thought about it, but your actions in this
Zommunity have suggested that you put cut « lot of al
Seu spread a lot ef misery throughout this community.

‘Ldn’ know if you have chouaht about that put iust
‘that sasust alone, if vou conslaer it ip tenths of a gram
ou ino. that's cera thousand uses of-crvstal

  

ry

That's a lot of pein for one community to sbsorb.

(Emphasis added.) The court then expounded on the cost to

society of drug use:

‘the cost to soctety here goes beyond those that are
busing, Because you not only have those that are using, but -
wereSee it ail the tame shen we look at children who suffer
Gea result of parente and loved ones being addicted to
Sfuge. so it goes well beyond those that are actually using
the erug. It’s those who are around that person as well.
Aad in any community where people think that it only
[Rvolves the users and their loved ones, individuals that
are addicted to drugs like crystal methanphetamine commit
any, mony, many crimes, and #0 1¢ has an impact on everyone
fsise’ in the community.

 

 

 

 

Appellant's alleged involvement in “dealing” was then

further discussed by the court:

And, T mean, 1 have to tell you this in very frank
teens, and that is if you axe sn the supply side of
this equation, ang you're supplying people with the
Glugss ‘the price tnat people pay to you for those
Grugs 4s going to be very, very smell compared to the
Price the people are going to pay in this courtroon
Shen it comes tine tovanewer [for} that kind of
Conduct.

‘The court hes seen 20 much pain inflicted and so
much misery inflicted by this drug thet, you know, my
feeling is all I can say to you and to others that
Choose to apread this king of misery around is a
Sonetines is said ca the street, is “Enough alr

 

 

 

‘The court also expressed its frustration with

Petitioner's post-charge conduct:

You were picked up, You went out, got out on bait
You got involved again, got ovt om bail. “You went out and
came back again with even more of the drug, and here you

 

8
‘***FOR PUBLICATION*#*

ees

 

. ok sche yt to mals
od on our Lav es that alse
* fashion ast eeich't th
Eolerated

(Emphasis added.) As part of its sentence the court imposed two
consecutive sentences of twenty years on Petitioner.‘
After imposing sentence, the court opined that

Petitioner was involved in a conspiracy:

And, of course, you knox, T want others to understand,
Iretitiones], because f know they will have contact with you
ane they are’ going to want co know whet nappened. Clearly,

 

You are involved in ~~ Welly 1 shoulan’t say clearly, bot
‘ceresiniv sopears fron the record that there ic, based on
DAL vou have $040 ne, a conapicacy to distribute drugs hese

Sther_individesls that think about coming to this community
and distributing drugs or possessing drugs of this nature
MILL Likewise be interested.

 

(Emphasis added.)

 

«the court sentences Petitioner on the cases as follows.

case 090: iuenty vears’ inorisonment for promoting a

(Count T)y attempted
Pronoting s dangerous drug in the first degree (Count 121),
fang pronoting 2 dangerous drug in the first degree (Count
Vil, ‘to be served concurrently, with » mandatory minimum
tern of five years, each
Case 496; five years’ imprisonment for promoting
Gangerous drug in the third degree (Count 1) and unlawfs
Use of deug paraphernalia (Count It); and thirty days" jail
Eine for promoting ¢ detrimental drug in the third degre
(Count IIT], to be served concurrently; with 3 mandstery
Binimun term of tworand-achalf years in Count
Case 036: susnty years’ incristnment for promoting
dangerous drug in the first degree (Count I) and fave years’
inpeisonnent for unlawful poseession of avug paraphernalia
(count 11), 80 ved concurrently? said terms to be

ed consecutively tothe te: and

Frere

(emphases added.) See State v. Mikesa, No. 25776, slip op. at 1-12 Ip.
Kore 7, 2006)

 

 

 

   

 
‘*#FOR PUBLICATION*+*

 

m.

On appeal Petitioner argued in part that the court
abused its discretion in relying upon an uncharged conspiracy in
fashioning its sentence. In addressing this point the ICA
indicated the court did not abuse “its ‘discretion in fitting the
punishment to the crime(,]’” slip op. at 16 (quoting State v,
Vellina, 106 Hawai'i 441, 449, 106 P.3¢ 364, 372 (2005) (citation
and internal quotation marks onitted)), because “the (PIR)
strongly suggested [Petitioner’s] involvement in large-scale ¢rug
Gistribution() . . . [and Petitioner's] own letter .
described him as an ‘errand boy’ in a drug dealing enterprise{,]”
id. The ICA concluded that *‘[a] sentencing court may consider
any and all accurate information that reasonably might bear on
the proper sentence for the particular defendant, given the crime
committed(,1’" slip op. at 17 (emphasis in original) (quoting
Shate vs Vinge, €1 Hawai'i 309, 323, 916 P.2d 1210, 1224 (1996)
(emphasis added; original emphasis, citation and internal
quotation marks omitted), and, therefore, the court “did not
abuse its discreiton in sentencing (Petitioner,]” id. The ICA
thus affirmed the court’s sentence.

In his application for a writ of certiorari from the

ICA's decision, Petitioner poses the following question:

 

1s the sentencing judge allowed to fashion # sentence, after
a plea agreement, in part on an alleges conspiracy when:
Ay"defendant has not pled to such a conspiracy:

B) information about the conspiracy appears to be gleaned
from:

10
‘+#*POR PUBLICATION***

 

1) the presentence report, which relies heavily on
police Feports which are not admissible in evidence)
ind

Zia letter from the defendant written to the judge
prior to senteneing(?)

Wie construe Petitioner's question as essentially objecting to the
court's reference to a conspiracy in imposing sentence.

We note that in Case 090, Petitioner was charged as a
principal or accomplice. In the other cases Petitioner was
apparently charged as a principal. A principal is the person
that commits the crime. State v. Fukusaku, 85 Hawai'i 462, 488,
946 .2d 32, $8 (1997) (defining principal as “the one who
actually conmits a crime” (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 1192
(6th ed. 1990))). HRS § 702-222 (1993) defines accomplice
Liability as follows:

Liability for conduct of another; complicity. A
person is an accomplice of another person an the commission
bf an offense ite

(i) Mth the intention of promoting or facilitating
tthe commission of the offense, the person:

(a). Solicits the other person to commit it; or

 

   

 

©) ‘OF attempts to aid the other
ining or conmiteing 1t7 oF
te) Having a legal dury to prevent the comission of
the offense, fails to make reasonable effort so
to dor or
(2) The person’ s conduct ts expressly declared by law

 

to establish the person's complicity.
‘The Commentary states that this section avoids the concept of
“conspiracy” in determining accomplice liability, explaining
that:

‘The Code avoids the vague concept of conspiracy in basing
Penal Liability on the conduct of another, and focus
Snstead on she conduct of the accused wnich is sufficient to
establish the accused's complicity... « Although the
Statutory law did not resort to the term’ “conspiracy” te

 

n
‘***FOR PUBLICATION***

establish complicity, the court has. (*) This should be
Gvolded because in some instances, where the chain of
Conspiraters Aaa become attenuated, imposition of 1iabiliey,
Gn the basis of complicity, for acts of renote conspirators
might be of questionable wisdom.

Commentary to HRS § 702-222 (footnote omitted).

on the other hand, conspiracy is a crime separate from
the crimes Petitioner was charged with and is defined in HRS §
708-820 (1993):

Criminal Conspiracy. A person is guilty of criminal
Conspiracy if; with intent to prosste oF facilitate the
Commission ofa erin

(a"ue egress with one or more perscns that they or
fone or more of thes will engage in or solicit the conduct or
wli°tause of solicit the result specified by the definition
Se the offense; ans

(2) He ex another person with whom he conspired
commits an overt act sn pursuance of the conspiracy,

This court has recognized that a defendant can be charged and
convicted of @ substantive crime as well as 2 separate
conspiracy. State v. Okumura, 78 Hawai'i 383, 411, 894 P.20 80,
208 (1995) (concluding that the jury should only consider the
conspiracy charge after reaching verdicts on al substantive
burglary charges and that the defendant could be found guilty of
conspiracy, separate from the substantive burglary charges, if
the jury found that the objective of the conspiracy was the
commission of burglaries other than those the defendant was to be
found guilty of and that an overt act in furtherance of that
burglary had been connitted by the defendant or one of his co-
conspirators). As is apparent from the facts, Petitioner was not

charged with conspiracy in any of the cases.

 

The Commentary refers to gate ta Yoshing, {5 Haw, 640, 372 F.2d
20s 1362), ond Gentes. Youhigas 8 awSes Set foe tose visel)

12
‘+**F0R PUBLICATION*+*

With respect to the court’s reference to a
“conspiracy,” the prosecution contended on appeal in part,' that
“the [court] did not abuse its discretion in sentencing
(Betitioner] to consecutive terms of imprisonment where the court
alluded to [Petitioner's] involvement in a drug distribution
conspiracy after imposing its sentence,” (emphasis in original),
because “it appears that the sentencing court arguably may not
have even relied on [Petitioner’s] involvement in a drug
distribution conspiracy as an ‘aggregating factor’ in imposing a
consecutive sentencing [sic] in this case,” inasmuch as (a) the
court focused on the Petitioner’s “blatant repetitive illegal
conduct," and (b) the court recognized the “pain” Petitioner had
caused the community “based on the large dealership amounts of
methamphetamine possessed by [Petitioner].”

qr.

We observe, first, that it is established in this

 

 

 

< the prosecution also argued that (1) @ sentencing judge hae brood
discretion in sentencing a defendant snd therefore must be provided with
Complete information about the defendant, (2) the court considered the factors
fo be considered in imposing @ sentence, ag set forth in HRS § 706-606 (1993),
in determining whether Petitioner's prison terme should run consecutively or
Concurrently, (3) “HRS $ 706-668.5 (1993) permits consecutive sentencing Lf
multiple terms of imprisonment are inposed on a criminal defendant at the
Eine,” (4) the court hed information Before it from the court record in case
090 that Petitioner wae involved ina conspiracy to sell drugs, insofar oe

(a) Petitioner argued in his Menorandur in Opposition te State's Hotion €o
Consoligate in that case thet the druge and erug paraphernalia found in one of
the black bags belonges to Fanelii, (bp) Petitioner and Fanalsi were arrested
for several identical offenses, (c) Petitioner and Famalil were both charged
as a "principal and/or an accomplice” in their respective indictments, and

(a) Petitioner and Kanalii "were indicted pursuant to a single grand jury
presentation,” and (3) the court could nave concluded that Petitioner was
Envolvea in @ conspiracy to sell drugs based on his letter to the court
Because “it fe clesr from the context of the sentencing court's comments that
(Petitioner) adnitted there was sone type of conspiracy.” in light of the
Gisposition herein, further mention of these argunents is unnecessary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13
‘+##F0R PUBLICATION**#*

jurisdiction that although a court has broad discretion in
sentencing, it cannot rely on any uncharged crime in exercising

that discretion.

While e court has broad discretion in imposing 2 sentence,
ard can consider the candor, conduct, remorse and background
Of the defendant as well as the circumstances of the crime
Gnd many cther factors, a judge cannot punsch 2 defendant
fer an Uncharged crime in the belief that it too deserves
ponishment

‘State v. Nunes, 72 Haw. 521, $26, 824 P.2d 837, 840 (1992). Thus

 

a palpable clain of error arises when 2 sentencing court cites an
uncharged crime as a factor in its sentencing decision. It is
not accurate, then, to rest disposition of such a claim on
whether the court had information sufficient to support its
exercise of discretion. For in Nunes the presence of such
information did not justify “punishiment] . . . for an uncharged
crime in the belief that it too deserves punishment.” Id.

As said before, Petitioner was not charged with
conspiracy. Despite this, the ICA concluded that assuming that
the court “indicated its reliance on [the existence of a
conspiracy] in fashioning its sentence,” slip op at 16 (emphasis
added), the court did not abuse its discretion because it in
effect “fit{] the punishment to the crime(,]” id, (quoting
Wellina, 106 Hawai'i at 449, 106 P.3d at 372 (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted). But if the court did in fact
rely on the uncharged crime of a conspiracy in “setting its
sentence,” its sentence must be vacated under Nunes, 712 Haw. at

526, 824 P.2d at 840 (observing that, except for the fact that

uM
‘**#FOR PUBLICATION*#*

the victim made inconsistent statements, trial judge’s belief
that victim “lied for the defendant,” was unsupported in the
record, and holding that while a court has “broad discretion in
imposing a sentence, . . . a judge cannot punish a defendant for
an uncharged crime in the belief that it too deserves
punishment”), Vellina, 106 Hawai'i at 449-50, 106 P.3d at 372-73
(holding that trial court abused its discretion when it sentenced
defendant to consecutive terms of imprisonment after considering
an uncharged crime that was unsupported by the record), and
Minge, @1 Hawai'i at 321-25, 916 P,2d at 1222-25 (concluding that
defendant was given “adequate notice of the possibility of
receiving a sentence of consecutive terms of imprisonment” but
that the trial court exceeded its authority in imposing
consecutive sentences when it relied on insufficient evidence of
defendant's membership in a gang as an aggravating factor in
imposing the sentence).

Wie observe that in consonance with one of the
prosecution’s arguments on appeal, the ICA characterized the
court's reference to @ conspiracy as being a “post sentence
statement{].” Slip op at 15. Tt is arguable based upon the
context in which the court’s remarks were made that the reference
to a conspiracy was necessarily divorced from the court's
preceding comments. However, the court did enumerate grounds
independent of the reference to @ conspiracy that would support

its consecutive sentence disposition as being within the scope of

as
‘***FOR PUBLICATION***

 

discretion traditionally accorded @ sentencing court. Cf. State
ve Ta , 96 Hawai'i 195, 199, 29 P.3d 914, 918 (2002)
(noting that “discretionary use of consecutive sentences is
properly imposed in order to deter future criminal behavior of
the defendant, to insure public safety, and to assure just
punishment for the crimes committed”).

That fact alone, however, would not conclusively
sanitize the court's sentence. In Vinge, this court stated that
other factors would not support consecutive sentences if the
court's remarks “clearly indicate(d]” that an improper ground was
an “aggravating factor” in the sentencing decision:

nile Vinge’s past criminal record and che egr!
facts surrounding the Honsport robbery may independently

jpport.@ sentence of consecutive terms
ntencing court's remarks during Vinge’ s
EXeatly Snaicste enat Vinge's essociation
Hone Soys, i.e, ns “gang-related activity,” was an

aggravating factor in the sentencing court's decision to
Expose consecutive sentences

 

 

    

   

Vinge, 61 Hawai'i at 324, 916 P.2d at 1225. Thus, as stated
supra, in Vinge this court concluded that the trial court
improperly considered evidence of gang association in imposing
sentence. Id.

In this case, before it imposed sentence and
subsequently referred to a “conspiracy,” the court was presented
with and set forth a multiplicity of circumstances that would
support an exercise of discretion in favor of consecutive
sentences, This included information of Petitioner's continued
drug offenses while awaiting disposition of his cases, his
“dealing” of drugs, the impact of his conduct on the community,

16
‘***F0R PUBLICATION*#*

and the need for deterrence of other persons involved in drug
offenses. In this context, the remarks of the court did not
“clearly indicate” that an “aggravating factor” in the court’s
sentence rested on the uncharged crime of a conspiracy. On this
basis we conclude the ICA's analysis was incorrect but that its
ultimate decision on this issue does not require reversal and is

therefore affirmed.

Josette Anne Wallace,
fon the application for

petitioner /defendant~ :
appelii Mixa Fplinnse~

 

v