Title: State v. Kahapea. Concurring Opinion by J. Acoba with whom J. Duffy, joins [pdf]. S.Ct. Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration, filed 08/30/2006 [pdf], 111 Haw. 316.

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

LAW LIBRARY

‘FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’ S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAT'T

 

00 =.

 

 

STATE OF HAWAI'I,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

gE 2 2
ve. Eb rc

cae z

MICHAEL KANAFEA, Defendant-Appeliant, Bag = ©

and

an

NORMAN TAM, RUSSELL WILLTAMS, also known as R.J. Williams and
Russell Williams, doing business as R.J., Hauling, CLAUDE HEBARU,
‘also known as Claude Hebaru doing business as Titan Moving and
Hauling, DONALD HALL, SR., also known as Donald Hall, Sr., doing
business ae A-1 Hawaii Trucking and Equipment, DONNA HASHIMOTO
ABELAYE, also known as Denna Abelaye, doing business as Specialty
Pacific Builders, Inc., DAVID BRIAN KAAHAAINA, also known as

David Brian Keahaaina

Going business as American Hauling, and
STEPHEN SWIFT, Defendants.

No. 27278

APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT
(cR. NO. 98-2135)

AUGUST 9, 2006

MOON, C.J., LEVINSON AND NAKAYAMA, JJ.; AND ACOBA, J., CONCURRING
SEPARATELY, WITH WHOM DUFFY, J., JOINS

OPINION OF THE COURT BY LEVINSON, J.
‘The defendant-appellant Michael Kahapea appeals from
the April 7, 2005 order of the circuit court of the first

circuit, the Honorable Reynaldo D. Graulty presiding, denying
Kahapea’s February 7, 2005 motion pursuant to Hawa

 

“i, Rules of
Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 35, for correction and/or reduction
POR PUBLICATION IN WEST’ S HAWAT'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *
of the sentence imposed by the circuit court's October 19, 2000
Judgment!

on appeal, Kahapea contends: (1) that the circuit
court abused its discretion in sentencing him to five consecutive
ten-year terms of imprisonment on October 19, 2000 and failing to
correct or reduce that sentence in its April 7, 2005 orders (2)
that the circuit court's imposition of five consecutive ten-year
terms of imprisonment constituted “cruel and unusual punishment”
contravening the eighth amendment to the United states
Constitution and article I, section 12 of the Hawai'i
Constitutions and (3) that the circuit court, by ordering his
sentences to run consecutively, deprived him of his right to a
trial by jury as interpreted by the United States Suprene Court
in Apprendi v. New Jersey, $30 U.S. 466 (2000).

For the reasons discussed infra in part III, this court
affims the circuit court's April 7, 2005 order.

REP Fale 35,
provides in relevant par

entitled “Correction or Reduction of Sentence,”

 

 

(a) Correction of I1legal Sentence. The court may correct
‘an Lilagal sentence at sny tine and nay correct « sentence inposed
Bh an Luiege! manner within the time provides herein for the
Feduction ef sentence A motion sade by a defendant to correct an
{lvegal sentence more than'90 days after the sentence is imposed
Shell be mace porauant to [HRPP] Rule ¢0 [(concerning post
Conviction proceedings)]..... « A-motion to correct # sentence
hat is mede within the 30 day time period shall empower the court
tevact on such motion even though the time period has expired.
(©) Reduction of Sentence. The court may reduces sentence

«within 90 days after receipt by the court of a mandate
[stued"upon af fiemance of the judgment... - A motion to reduce
Avsentence that is mage within the time prior shell empower the
fours tevact on such motion even though the time period has
expired.

 

 

 

 

 
‘FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *
1. BACKGROUND
A. Factual Backaround

The Ewa Villages Revitalization Project evolved from
the vision of the City and County of Honolulu (hereinafter, “the
City”) to revitalize the ‘Ewa area and “provide home ownership
opportunities for the pecple that lived in. . . Ewa Villages.”
To implement this vision, extensive relocation of residential and
commercial tenants on a temporary or permanent basis was
necessary, and the City earmarked six million dollars for that
purpose

‘The City’s Department of Housing and Community
Development (DHCD), Housing Division, Property Management Branch
(PNB), headed by Kahapea, handled all commercial relocations in
Ewa Villages. Commercial relocations could be accomplished in
one of three ways: (1) @ business could move and take a limited
fixed payment based on its average net income, for expenses of up
to $8000.00; (2) the City could hire a moving company through a
Procurement process that was controlled by the Purchasing
Division of the Department of Budget and Fiscal Services; or (3)
the tenant could move itself or hire a mover, and the City would
reimburse the tenant for all “actual and reasonable” costs
related to the relocation. Kahapea was responsible for verifying
that relocations in the third category were completed and that
the costs incurred were indeed “actual and reasonable.” When the
“claims expense form(s)” that Kahapea completed, together with
supporting documents, were submitted to the DHCD, the City would

issue checks to the respective moving companies.
‘FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *

Between 1993 and 1997, the City paid approximately six

 

million dollars to the defendants Titan Moving and Hauling
(Titan), R.J. Hauling (R.J.), A-l Hawaii Trucking and Equipment
(-1), Specialty Pacific Builders, Inc. (SPB), and American
Hauling (AH) for work ostensibly performed to relocate commercial

tenants.? These reimbursements were based on false and forged

+ the following chart details the relocation reinbursenents paid by
the City to various moving conpanses for the purported relocations of
Commercial tenants in ewe Viluages:

   

 

 

 

 

 

wuuEceo | TOTAL RELOCATION TALLEGED MOVING COMEANY
ahs Suge $3,300,000" [a-i (9339, 000°)
company BH. ($160, 000")

Rg. (5880, 000*)
5e8 ($663, 000")
Titan’ (51,200, 000")

 

 

 

 

Benton Fost $30, 200 Benton Post (rselfvmove™) (830,200)
Richa State $163,050 | Titen (#163,850)
fours
mr $576,304 [Ara (self-nover) ($523,374)
RJ. (523, 560)

Advance Electric ($33,370)

 

ome $239,810 Rig. (6272, 430)
titan Moving § Hauling ($68,320)

 

. . — ‘Titan ($62,000)

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

Transcend, Ine, (“eel f-move)_(£27,000")
PAFCO 330, Titan (614,250)
Aavance Electric ($15,984)

independent $253,080 [R.d. (8176, 750)
Sondblasting Hetan (576, 330)

oy 823, Titan (823, 390)
Welosng
Bea Beauty 386,800 | see (see,800)

3 (cont inved. -]

  

 

 

 

 

Barbershop

 
¥FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *
documents submitted by Kahapea. Specifically, Kahapea presented
blank “Agreement For Direct Payment To Mover” and “Claim For
Payment Moving Expense” forms to tenants’ representatives for
their signatures. Later, Kahapea would complete the forms with
false information and prepare false bids and invoices. In many
instances, the relocations never took place.

Kahapea converted the reimbursement checks into
cashiex’s checks and cash for his personal use. For example,
Robert Eugene Oriskovich testified that Kahapea paid Oriskovich’s
travel expenses to Hawai‘l. During Oriskovich’s visits, Kahapea

spent between $500 and $1500 per night at bars.

 

Oriskovich
testified that, on one occasion, Kahapea split a $10,000 tab with
another person.

Kahapea’s nephew, Michael John Barnett, testified that,
between 1993 and 1997, he received approximately twelve cashier’ s
checks from Kahapes, payable to him and totaling approximately
$250,000.00. Barnett explained that Kehapea instructed him to

“go to the bank and cash them and bring him back the money.”

 

21. scontinved)

mH $293,689 [AN (#159, 478)
Reg. ($9,200)
Titan (824, 980)

 

 

Aaerican $593,054 [aN (3245, 980)
Welding Reg. (895,685)
SPE (540,287)
Titan’ (8197, 490)
American Weising (514, 462)

 

 

 

 

 

 

SapproRInate snout
‘*FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’ S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *
Barnett testified that he did not do any commercial relocation
work in Ewa Villages.

The defendant Claude Hebaru testified that he formed
Titan at Kahapea’s urging. Between 1993 and 1997, Hebaru, doing
business as Titan, received approximately two million dollars
from the City for purported relocation work in Ewa Villages in
which he did not participate. He testified that he gave Kehapea
blank Titan letterheads, which Kahapea used to submit bid
proposals. Kahapea would “write out the bids(,) . . . pull out
everything, . . . and tell [Hebaru] afterwards that [they] got
the job and all that.” ‘Thereafter, Kahapea would notify Hebaru
that Kahapea had a City check for the purported relocation job
and they would arrange to meet at the bank. At the bank, Hebaru
exchanged the City’s drafts for cashier's checks payable to
individuals specified in Kehapea’s written list. Approximately
three thousand dollars would remain after every exchange
Hebaru testified that, between 1993 and 1997, he split
approximately $400,000 “{a]imost 50/50” with Kahapea.

In 1993, Benton K. Post, former maintenance manager for
Aloha State Tours, met with Kahapea after the City notified Aloha
State Tours that it would have to move. Post testified that
Kahapea told hin, “[Ylou work hard and you should be entitled to
some relocation money also.” When Post informed Kahapea that he
was not 2 tenant in Eva Villages, Kahapea replied, “[N]o worry.
[1]/11 take care of it.” Thereafter, Kahapea provided Post with
blank relocation forms and instructed him “(just to sign” then.

Kehapea also instructed Fost to prepare invoices. Post testified
‘FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAT'E REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *
that he received City checks, personally delivered by Kahapea,
for relocation work that he did not do. When Kahapea gave Post a
check, Kahapea would tell him that they needed to cash the check
“right away.” Post testified that Kahapea always instructed him
to “get me about half.”

‘The defendant David Brian Kaahaaina testified that he
had previously worked for American Welding, which his parents
owned. He first met Kahapea when Kahapea approached him about
the cost to relocate American Welding. Kaahaaina submitted a
$20,000 bid to relocate American Welding and received a city
check for that amount. Thereafter, Kahapea contacted Keahaaina
regarding other relocation jobs and instructed him to submit bids
that included “a little cushion on top.” Kahapea further
instructed Kaahaaina as to the particular language that he should
include in his paperwork and requested blank letterhead with
Keahaaina’s signature on the bottom. Kaahaaina testified that
payments for purported relocation work were delivered by Kahapea.
upon delivery, Kaahaaina “would go and deposit the check into
[his] account and take out that extra cushion and give that to
[Kahapea]” in cash. Kaahaaina testified that he received
altogether twenty to thirty City checks, totaling “between
$700[,000} to $800,000,” of which he gave “roughly $300[,000] to
$400,000" to Kahapea.

In 1993, Shirley Hell, former vice president of A-1,
met with Kahapea after the City notified A-1 that A-1 would have
to relocate. Shirley testified that Kahapea gave A~1 jobs that

involved “cleaning up" the residential and commercial areas of
‘*FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *
Ewa Villages. Although such jobs only required “cleaning up,”
Kahapea instructed Shirley to use the word “nove” in all
proposals she typed and directed her to use phrases like
“[plropose to dismantle, crate, load, haul supplies and equipment
from Ewa Villages to designated storage site.”

‘The City paid A-1 for the purported relocations and
Kahapea delivered the checks to Shirley. Shirley testified that
her husband, the defendant Donald Hall, Sr., instructed her to go
to the bank, deposit the checks, and withdraw cash, sometimes
totaling $60,000. After Shirley gave the cash to Donald, he
would meet with Kahapea and then return with “between 20 and 50
percent” less cash. Between 1993 to 1997, A-I received
approximately $700,000 to $800,000 in City checks, of which a
little over $600,000 was taken in cash. Shirley testified that
Kahapea took “at least half” of the $600,000.

The City’s chief accountant, Michael Hansen, testified
that, on June 28, 1997, he audited the Ewa Villages
Revitalization Project after he received an inquiry about the

fairness of the bid proc

 

s. He reviewed all paperwork submitted

 

and all checks issued for purported relocations in Ewa Villag
He testified that, between 1993 and 1997, there were
approximately one hundred seventy relocation claims submitted in
connection with the Eva Villages Relocation Project totaling
$6,186,000.

After reviewing the City’s checks and supporting
documents, Honolulu Police Captain Daniel Hanagami, then in

charge of the white collar crime unit, noticed that “(t]here were
+voR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *
basically five companies being consistently avarded relocation
services” -- R.J., A-1, SPB, Titan, and AH. Captain Hanagani
testified that, based on his review, he suspected “bid rigging.”
Captain Hanagams further testified that the information provided
in the relocation claims revealed moving companies that shared
telephone numbers and addresses. when Captain Hanagami attempted
to locate the moving companies in the telephone book, only SPB
was listed. Mozeover, Captain Hanagami discovered that, after
the City issued relocation checks, they were innediately cashed
and converted into cashier's checks. When Captain Hanagami went
to Eva Villages to verify the relocation claims, he discovered
that many of the named commercial tenants had not moved.

‘The Honolulu Police Department apparently arrested
Kahapea in October 1997.

B, Procedure Backaround

1 wiction, sentenc rect a

on May 26, 1998, an O'ahu grand jury returned an
indictment against Kahapea and his codefendants. The indictment

charged Kahapea with: (1)

 

wenteen counts of theft in the first
degree in violation of Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 708-
€30.5(1) (a) (1993) (counts 1-8, 11-17, 19, and 21-25); (2) five
counts of theft in the second degree in violation of HRS § 708-
#31(1) (b) (1993) (counts 9-10, 18, 20, and 26); (3) eleven counts
of forgery in the second degree in violation of HRS § 708-852
(2993) (counts 27-37); (4) five counts of unlawful ownership or
operation of business in violation of HRS $§ #42-2(3) (2993) and
£42-3 (1993) (counts 38-42); ($) one count of money laundering in
‘FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAT'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *

violation of HRS § 708-8120(1) (a) (1993) (count 43

 

+ (6) one
count of money laundering in violation of HRS §§ 708A~3(a) (1) (A)
(supp. 1995) and (4) (2) (Supp. 1995) (count 44); (7) one count of
bribery in violation of HRS § 710-1040(1) (b) (1993) (count 46);
and (8) two counts of failure to report income in violation of

HRS § 842-11 (1993) (counts 47-48).? Count 45 did not involve

 

2 gs § 708-820.5 provides in relevant part: {2} A person commits
the offense of theft in the first degree if the person commits theft: (a) Of
property...» the value of which exceeds $20,000 s+ (2) Theft in the
Hirst degree ic’ a clase B felony.”

HRE 5 708-831 provides in relevant part: “(2) A person commits the
offence of theft in the second degree if the person commits theft a)
Of property. - the velue of which exceeds £300... (2) Theft in the

Second degree isa clase C felony.” Effective July 20, i998 and duly 1, 2005,
Exe Jegisioture nended this section in respects not germane to the present
 the circuit court's oral sumary of Eviota is unclear but, in its
ii 7, 2008 order denying Kahapes’s motion, the court noted that “Evicta
Ceenitted theft ef vs substantially less... public funds than «

Kenapea
19
‘*FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *

everything that he had done: the fact that he wae the
mastermind, the fact that ne had come up with this universal
Schene of theft and bribery and seduction in order to
isfy his own personal needs.
‘There vere no nstigating factors in thie case. This.

 

 

back. thie who 2503
=

bie tantiv! ab wermment to
Hah eninge TW}nether oF not it serves a
Getervence, im sure there will alvaye be property crine

 

geing inte’ the future, bot this cage was rensrtable with
Fegard to the extent, ‘the involvenent of #0 many peopli
leading to one person, and that le... Kehspes

  

(Bmphases added and formatting altered.) On April 7, 2005, the

circuit court entered the following FOFs and conclusions of law

 

 

(cous) :
3 apie)zendi, does not apply... since .
itanapea das net sentenced to an extended term Gr enhanced
4c. . (he [circuit court exercised it []2 discretion

‘thin’ the range prescribed by statute after taking into
Consideration various factore relating to seth the offense
and’ [rahapeal

Bo... Kahapes had £01] knowledge of the possibie
sentences that could have been imposed by this [elourt.

 

 

 

7. 11. nebaru cooperated with law enforcement... and
Agteed to testify against other defencenes.

6. 1 Thun did not commit theft of public fund

5: 1! vices comuitte theft of... substantially less
public fonds than... Rahapea

301 PP

b. 1 1. crane case snvoived the largest thett of public

 

fonds in'ene (Gityi"e Ristory
+: ; Rahapea was in position of trust at the tine of
the criminal’ eftense
* Kahapea took public funds from 2 financially
strapped City... (,] which could not have afforded lose
in the magnitude of finde involved.
wv Skahepea"s criminal conduct was not only = theft

fiom'the city: . . , but was a theft from toxpayers,

gs - + (T]he City’... had to expend additional funds
fo’ uncover the éxtent’ and magnitude of the

Enea OTP

be. | | Rahapea wae the “mastermind” who. . . devised the

Haudvient schene to take public funds from’ the city .

Ao. xahapea used co-workers, family, friends, people

20
‘FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’ S HAWAT'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *

 

leno had financial weeknetses, and others who had trusted him
to carrying out his fraudulent scheme.
i... «1 Rahapea used the public funds to support his
lividn’aieestya ibited in an incident there he - . -
spent £10, 900/00 one night at a Korean (njostess bar.

* «Kahapea went a0 far as to involve his
{atepldaughter’ tn the fFautulent. senene{s] which resulted in
an abuse of her financial situation,

 

   

   

31.0") V'kahapea took public funds for personal gain,
breached the trust of family, friends and co-workers, and[,]
unlike. . + Chun, lacked the fungs to repay the City

Accordingly, the circuit court concluded that its October 19,
2000 sentence “was and still is the appropriate sentence in this
matter” and denied Kahapea’s motion. On May 5, 2005, Kahapea
filed a timely notice of appeal to this court.

IT. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
A. Sentencing

[A] sentencing judge generally has broad
discretion in inposing a sentence. Th

Standard of review for sentencing or
Batters is whether the court committed
Ranifest abuse of discretion in ite decision,

   

“[F]actors which indicate s plain and manifest abuse of

discretion are arbitrary of capricious action by the judge

and a rigid refusel to consider the defendant's

Contentions." Ang, “(glenerally, to constitute an abuse it
‘appeer that the court clearly exceeded the bounds of

Feason of disregarded rules of principles of law or practice

tothe substantial detriment of a party litigant.”

State v. Rauch, 94 Hawai'i 315, 322, 13 P.3d 324, 331 (2000)

(brackets in original) (internal citations omitted) (quoting

Keawe v. State, 79 Hawai'i 281, 284, 901 P.2d 481, 484 (1995);

State v. Fry, 61 Haw. 226, 231, 602 P.2d 13, 17 (1979), quoted

in State v, Gonsalves, 108 Hawai'i 289, 293, 119 P.3d 597, 601

(2005); State v. De Guaix, 108 Hawai'i 179, 186, 118 P.3d 662,

669 (2005); State v. Maugzotega, 107 Hawai'i 399, 406, 114 P.3¢

905, 912 (2005); State v. Koch, 107 Hawai'i 215, 219-20, 112 P.3d

  

  

a
*POR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAT' REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *

69, 73-74 (2005); State v. Solomon, 107 Hawai'i 117, 126, 111
P.3d 12, 22 (2005); State v, Vellina, 106 Hawai'i 441, 446, 106
P.3d 364, 369 (2005); Rivera, 106 Hawai'i at 154-55, 102 P.3d at
1052-53; State v. Kamanao, 103 Hawai'i 315, 319, 82 P.3d 402, 405
(2003); State v. Hauge, 103 Hawai'i 38, 48, 79 P.3d 131, 141
(2003); sti ua, 102 Hawai'i 1, 7, 72 P.3d 473, 479

 

(2003).
B. Que: const a
“(this court} answer{s] questions of constitutional law
sby exercising [its] own independent . . . Judgment based on the
facts of the case.’ Thus, [this court] review{s] questions of

constitutional law [‘Junder the []right/wrong{] standard.‘

 

State v. Arceo, @4 Hawai'i 1, 11, 928 P.2d 643, 653 (1996)
(quoting State v. Lee, 82 Hawai'i 267, 273, 925 P.2d 1091, 1097
(1996); State v, Trainor, 83 Hawai'i 250, 255, 925 P.2d 618, 623
(2996); State v. Tovomura, 60 Hawai'i 8, 15, 904 P.2d 893, 900

(1995); State v. Baranco, 77 Hawai‘ 351, 355, 884 P.2d 729, 733

(1994)), quoted in State v, Bani, 97 Hawai" 285, 289, 36 P.3d
1255, 1259 (2001).

IIT. DISCUSSION
A rendi*s tnapolical onsect os
Inprisonment
on appeal, Kahapea argues that the circuit court’s
imposition of consecutive terms of imprisonment contravenes the
United States Supreme Court's decision in Apprendi on the basis
that consecutive sentences are “analogous to the enhancement of

sentencing” and, therefore, cannot be legally imposed in the

22
‘*FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAT'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *

absence of aggravating facts expressly alleged in the charging
instrument and found by the jury to be proved beyond a reasonable
doubt.

In its answering brief, the prosecution counters that
“(jludicial factfinding does not, on its own, violate the [s]ixth
[almendnent. . . . Apprendi applies to situations where the
sentence is alleged to have exceeded the statutory maximum .
for a particular offense[,] not the aggregate effect that results
when sentences for convictions on multiple counts are ordered to
be served consecutively.” (Emphases omitted.) (Citing HRS $5
706-668.5 and 708-830.5(1) (a), see supra notes 3 and 6.)

In Apprendi, the United States Supreme Court held that,
“[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that
increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory
maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a
reasonable doubt.” 530 U.S. at 490; see also 3 Charles Alan
Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 526 6 n.S8 (3d
ed. 2004 & Supp. 2005).

Admittedly, stacking Kahapea’s multiple sentences
together has the effect of enhancing the length of his
incarceration beyond ten years, the statutory maximum for one
first-degree theft, see HRS § 706-660, supra note 8.
Nevertheless, none of Kahapea’s five individual terms of
imprisonment exceeded the statutory maximum. This court
Suggested in Rivera that the logic of the Apprendi rule did not
apply to consecutive term sentencing:

In the present matter, the circuit court nad the:

Giscretion under HRS § 70E-E6E.5 to sentence Rivera to serve

23
*FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *

bee consecutive five-year Indeterminate maximum terms of
Imprisonment for his convictions of clase ¢ felonies in
Counts I and IT because “multiple terns of impriscnnent
[were] inposed on (hin) at the sane tine.” Again, the
circuit court would have been requires to consider the
factors set forth in HRS $ 106-606(, gee gupra note 9) ~
Enclusing the need to "protect the public” contained in HRS
§ 706-606 (2) (c) == when devernining whether to inpose
Consecutive of concurrent terns of imprisonment

 

IBly the plain language of HRS § 706-668.5(2) ~
although Subject, pursuant to HRS § 706-E65.5(1), to
Presumptively concurrent sentencing in connection with
multiple prison terss “imposed st the sane time” ~-[)
The sentencing court [is] ebligsted to "consider the
Factors set forth in [HRS §) 706-606" when determining
Whether multiple ingeterainate prion terme were to
Fun concurrently or consecutively.

 

1 inine fact that HRS § 706-606 is
incorparatéd by reference into HRS § 706-668.5 has
profouna significance, Searing sn mind chat li)
Theeterninate (including consecutive) prison terms are
inherently incapacitative, the legislative sentencing
philosophy permeating RS’ ch. 706 in general ang HRS
§ Tos-e06 in particular dictates that discretionary
Consecutive prison sentences, pursuant to HRS

§ J0s-6e8.5, may properly be imposed only if the penal
Sbjectives sought to be achieves include retribution
(diss, “Just des(slerts") and deterrence.

[Skate v JGavlord, 78 Mawai't (127, 149-150, 890 F.2d
(ier tes-]50 Tri9es)) =. Had the efrcust court
Sentenced Rivera to consecutive terme of ssprisonment in
Counts I and it, the effect would have been a ten-year
indeterminate méxinun ters of imprisonment, a term qual. to
tthe two concurrent ten-year extended terns of imprisonment
that the circuit court actually imposed in this case. Tt
Gefies logic that the circuit court could, consistent with
Elekely, legitimately inpose the same ten-year sentence,
Comprised of two consecutive five-year indeterminate maximon
ferms, under ordinary sentencing princsples, but run afoul
of Blakely by imposing concurrent ten-year extended terns of
Gnprisonnent based on the finding of prior or saltiple
concurrent convictions.

Rivera, 106 Hawai'i at 163-64, 102 P.3d at 1061-62 (some

citations omitted) (some emphases and ellips

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

added and some in
original) (some brackets added, some omitted, and some in

original).

24
‘*FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAT'E REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *
Confronting analogous situations, other jurisdictions,
including several federal circuits, have aphoristically dismissed
the proposition that either Blakely or Apprendi proscribes
consecutive term sentencing, and this court does likewise. See,
Sad, United States v. Pressley, 345 F.3d 1205, 1213 (11th cir.
2003); United States v. Harrison, 340 F.3d 497, 500 (8th Cir.
2003); United States v. Davis, 329 F.3d 1250, 1254 (11th Cir.
2003); United states v. Chorin, 322 F.3d 274, 279 (34 Cir. 2003);
inited States v. Lott, 310 F.3d 1231, 1242-43 (10th Cir. 2002);
United States v. Sua, 307 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2002); United
States v. Diaz, 296 F.3d 690, 684 (8th Cir. 2002) (en banc};
nited States v. McHaine, 290 F.3d 269, 276 (Sth Cir. 2002);
United States v, Buckland, 289 F.3d 558, 570-71 (9th Cir. 2002)
(en banc); United States v, Campbell, 279 F.3d 392, 401-02 (6th
cir. 2002); United States v. Feola, 275 F.3d 216, 220 & n.1 (24
Cir. 2001); United States v. Parolin, 239 F.3d 922, 929-30 (7th
Cir. 2001}; United states ex rel, Thomas v. Hinsley, 379 F. Supp.
2d 924, 925 (N.D. I11. 2005); Weight v. State, 46 P.3d 395, 398
(Alaska Ct. App. 2002); Hall v, State, 823 So. 2d 757, 764 (Fla.
2002); People v. Wagener, 752 N.E.2d 430, 441-42 (111, 2001)
[s]entences which run consecutively to each other are not

 

transmuted thereby into a single sentence. Because consecutive
sentences remain discrete, a determination that sentences are to
be served consecutively cannot run afoul of Apprendi, which only
addresses sentences for individual crimes.”); State v. Rapnow,
703 N.W.2d $75, 581 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005) (citing State ve
Senske, 692 N.W.2d 743, 747-48 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005)); State v

25
“FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *
Higaing, €21 A.2d 964, 975-76 (N.H. 2003); State v. Abdullah, @5€
A.2d 19, 39 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2004), aff'd, rev'd on
other grounds, 878 A.2d 746, 756 & n.6, 757 (N.J. 2005); People
‘we Murray, 785 N.¥.S.2d 675, 677 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2004); State we
Lowery, 826 N.E.2d 340, 355 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005); State v
Cubias, 120 P.34 929, 932 (Wash. 2005), followed by State ve
Louis, 120 P.3d 936, 940 (Wash. 2005).

In the present matter, Kahapea was convicted by the

 

jury of five first-degree thefts, for each of which he was
sentenced to ten years’ incarceration. Pursuant to HRS
$5 706-660 and 706-668.5, five ten-year terms running
consecutively ig the statutory maximum; hence, Kahapea’s sentence
did not deprive him of his right to a jury trial as interpreted
by the United States Supreme Court in Apprendi and Blakely.
B. The Circuit Court's Denial of Kahapea's HRPP Sule 38

ESE

1. The parties’ araunents

Kahapea essentially contends that the circuit court
abused its discretion by not granting Kahapea’s February 7, 2005
motion such that one or more of his five terms of imprisonnent
would run concurrently, which would effectively shorten his
maximum prison sentence by some multiple of ten years.

Kahapea argues that “the circuit court made specific
IFOF]s as obvious aggravating factors to justify its imposition
of consecutive sentences of . . . Kahapea that . . . were clearly
without basis and not supported by competent evidence,” to wit,

that “the case involved the largest theft of public funds in the

26
‘FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’ S HAMAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *
[city]'s history” and that “Kahapea tock public funds from a
financially strapped City . . . which could not have afforded a
loss in the magnitude of funds involved.” Kahapea further urges
that $1.7 million, the lesser and more recent of the two amounts
of stolen funds that the circuit court acknowledged, “although
substantial, was far less than . . . 5.8 million dollars

- ()] upon which the circuit court had based its [FOFs) in
imposing the five consecutive ten-year sentences of imprisonment
on October 19, 2000."

Next, Kahapea objects to the circuit court’s comparing
him to Chun, who, unlike Kahapea, apparently had “‘the funds to
repay the City.’ The circuit court could not, Kahapea asserts,
“impose total confinement . . . in response to nonpayment
resulting from (present) inability to pay (restitution].’"
(Quoting Gavlord, 78 Hawai'i at 154, 890 P.2d at 1194 (brackets
in original) .)

Kahapea further implies that the circuit court

misapplied HRS § 706-606(4), see supra note @: “(T]he only other
defendant . . . who served any jail time at all was. . . Hebaru,
who was @ major player in the. . . case, . . ." (Citations
omitted.) According to Kahapea, the circuit court noted,

contrary to fact, that “Hebaru cooperated with law enforcement

authorities and had agreed to testify against other defendants.”

citing State v. Ta , 96 Hawai'i 195, 199-200, 29
P.3d 914, 918-19 (2001), and State v. Sinacoga, 1 Hawai'i 421,

427, 918 P.2d 228, 234 (App. 1996), in its answering brief, the

prosecution argues that, “[a]bsent clear evidence to the

20
‘*FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *
contrary, it is presumed that a sentencing court will have
considered all” of the criteria listed in HRS § 706-606.

Furthermore, the prosecution contends that the circuit
court's order did not turn on an FOF precisely quantifying the
amount of stolen money. In any case, the prosecution implies,
the October 19, 2000 sentence could not have been illegal at the
time because the circuit court’s FOF that Kahapea had stolen only
$1.7 million occurred after sentencing, at its September 26, 2001
restitution hearing.

With respect to the comparative magnitude of Kahapea's

crime

 

) the prosecution indicates that Kahapea

as convicted of conmitting considerably more offenses than
the ether individvele to wom
Urahspes

   

unlike.
the mnind,”" who Stlagraneiy, without co
tithout shame, took advantage of h9 position
manipslate. [the] states relocation ews and orchestrate the
theft of $5.8 million.”

Bdgitienally, end unlike [Kshapes], his co-defendants
seemed to have taken responsibility, in varying degrees, for
their roles in his "fraudulent and deceitful bid=rigging
Schene.” The (COL) is supported by [Kehapea)’=
Scknowiedgnent in his Resentencing Motion thatl] *. .

    
 

    

 

Bebaro and. - - Kaghaaina testified at trial for the
(prosecution) plrsuant to ples agreements... - Donald
ane. Hashinoto-Abelaye dig not testify at trial

2" they changed their pleas apparently without any agreement
to testify, snd they Mere awaiting sentencing at the tine of
trial.” Finelly, a12 covdefendants are repaying noney
they illegally received; and in no case is the amount 25
great as she “51-7 million in public funds” the [circuit]
Sourt found chat (Kahapes) had personally received.

[kahapea|"s reference to the sentences of other
defendants merely Illustrates a different sentencing court's
Glecretion and does not demonstrate that the court thet

jentences him abused ite siscretion in imposing consecutive
ferme of imprisonsent.

 

   

(Some brackets in original and some added.)

28
*POR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAT'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *

2. Analysis

This court has not circumscribed the particular weight
to be given the particular factors upon which Kahapea relies, but
the circuit court’s sentence is entitled to deferential appellate
review. “The [circuit] court ha[d] discretion to make the
punishment fit the crime(s], as well as the needs of the
individual defendant and the community.” State v. Teves, 4 Haw.
App. 566, 573, 670 P.2d 834, 838 (1983); State v. Pantoia, 89
Hawai'i 492, 497, 974 P,2d 1082, 1087 (1999) ("In ordinary
sentencing situations, the sentencing court is given a great deal
of discretion to fashion an ‘individualized’ sentence, ‘fitted to
the personal characteristics of the defendant,’ and ‘the
particular circumstances of the defendant's case.’) (footnote
omitted) (quoting Keawe v. State, 79 Hawai'i 281, 285, 901 P.2d
481, 485 (1995); State v. Huelsman, 60 Haw. 71, 85, 588 P.2d 394,
403 (1978)). Neither medical circumstances nor improvenents in

 

Kahapea’s attitude are compulsory mitigators. As the
Intermediate Court of Appeals stated in Teves, even “a disparity
among (defendants'] sentences does not establish that any
particular defendant's sentence is excessive.” 4 Haw. App. at
572-73, 670 P.2d at 638.

‘The circuit court acknowledged that the amount of money
that Kahapes stole could be as “little” as $1.3 million but
implied that the precise amount was immaterial to the sentence it
ultimately mandated; the circuit court reasonably placed greater
significance on the number of victims and their “innocent

bystander” status: “Even assuming the number to have been 1.3

28
‘FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST

 

HAWAI'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *
million dollars, this was 1.3 million dollars that a financially
strapped city administration could {11 afford to lose at the
time, It was a theft of funds not just from a particular entity
such as an insurance company. It was a theft of funds from ali
of us as taxpayers. The victims were numerous.”

With respect to Kapahea’s argument that he should not
be imprisoned “tin response to nonpayment resulting from

(present) inability to pay [restitution],‘" (brackets in
original) (quoting Gavlord, 78 Hawai'i at 14, 890 P.2d at 1194),
Kahapea mischaracterizes this court’s holding in Gavlord. In
that case, the circuit court had sentenced the defendant to
consecutive terms not because it “inten{ded) . . . that [he] be
imprisoned for an extended or enhanced period of time,” but
rather to prolong the HPA’s “jurisdiction and control over [hin]
- . . to see to it that [he] makes full restitution.” 78 Hawai'i
at 134, 154, 890 P.2d at 1174, 1194 (emphasis omitted). In Light
of the goals of incarceration enshrined in HRS ch. 706 and its
commentary, this court stated in Gaylord that, “at the very
least, (1) the sentencing court must expressly intend that the
defendant's period of incarceration be prolonged by virtue of the
consecutive character of the prison terms (the retributive goal),
and (2) the sentence must enbody the forward-looking aim of
future crime reduction or prevention (the deterrent goal).” 78
Hawai'i at 154, 890 P.2d at 1194 (emphases omitted). It was
because the trial court manifestly disregarded the foregoing
propositions that this court vacated Gaylord’s sentence. 78

Hawas'l at 185, 890 P.2d at 1195.

30
*POR PUBLICATION IN WEST’ S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *

Gaylord is therefore distinguishable from the present
matter. While sentencing Kahapea to consecutive terms, the
circuit court evinced no such impermissible goal as securing
restitution. At most, the circuit court implied that the fact
that Kahapes squandered the ill-gotten gains that he otherwise
could have returned as restitution was an aggravating
consideration: “this is a case . . . of @ person who says at the
end after all that is said and done, I have nothing to show for
it.” Cf. State vy, Mikasa, 111 Hawai'i 1, 8, 135 P.3¢ 1044, 1052
(2006). Kahapea’s implication that the circuit court punished
him for being poor is pure chutzpa.

on balance, the record on appeal reflects that Kehapea
effected a complicated schene through the manipulation of others
and at the profound and unrecoverable expense of taxpayers. Sse
supra part I.A.. While stern, the circuit court's sentence
furthers the statutory penological goals of retribution,
incapacitation, and deterrence and does not reflect “arbitrary or
capricious action” or “a rigid refusal to consider the
defendant's contentions.” See Rauch, 94 Hawai'i at 322, 13 P.3d
at 331.

c. Kehabea‘s Sentence Did Not Constitute Cruel and Unusual
‘Punishment

In his remaining point of error, Kahapea alleges that
his sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Citing
Solem vs Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 292-93 (1983), he asserts that “the
harshness of the penalty” in comparison to “the sentences imposed
on others in this jurisdiction” renders it unconstitutional,
particularly in light of: (1) his age at the time of sentencing

3
‘POR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAT'T REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *

(fifty-seven); (2) his “hav[ing] lived a law-abiding life for a
substantial period of time before . . . the present offenses";
(3) his crimes being “unlikely to recur"; and (4) the circuit

court’s decision not to impose extended terms of imprisonment.

‘The standard by which punishment is to be judged under
the ‘cruel and unusual” punishnent provisions of both the
Unites Stetes and uawai(')i Constitutions 1e(} whether (,) in
the Light of developing concepts of decency and fairness,
the prescribed punishment te 20 disproportionate to the
conduct proscribed and is of such duration ss to shock the
Conscience of reasonable persons or to outrage the moral
Sense of the community.

   

State v. Freitas, 61 Haw. 262, 267-68, 602 P.2d $14, 920 (1979)
(citing State v. Iaukea, 56 Haw. 343, $37 P.24 724 (1975)),

quoted in State v, Jenkins, 93 Hawai"! 87, 114, 997 P.2d 13, 40
(2000); State vs Davia, 87 Hawai'i 249, 258, 953 P.24 1347, 1356
(1998); State vs Loa, 83 Hawai'i 335, 357, 926 P.2d 1279, 1258,
1280 (1996).

In part III.B.2, supra, we hold that, given (1) the
destructive, deceitful, and wasteful, albeit nonviolent,
character of Kahapea’s offenses and (2) the primacy of the
five

 

retributive, incapacitative, and deterrent objective:

consecutive ten-year terms of imprisonment does not reflect a

 

plain and manifest abuse of discretion on the part of the circuit
court. & fortiori, such a sentence is not so disproportionate to
Kahapea’s crimes nor of such duration as to shock the conscience
of reasonable persons or to outrage the moral sense of the
community, in light of developing concepts of decency and

fairness.

32
‘*FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *

IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, this court affirms the circuit court's
April 7, 2005 order.

on the briefs: y)
Richard Naiwieha Wurdenan
for defendant-appellant

Michael Kahapea Shear Ppvrimer—

Donn Fudo, deputy S

prosecuting attorney, ein eadeet re
for plaintiff-appellee

State of Hawai't