Title: State v. Munar

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

**% Nom FOR PUBLICATION in WEST'S HAWAT'T REPORTS
and PACIFIC REPORTER ***

No. 25917
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

 

 

STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellant, 3
ve. a: &

WESLEY J. MUNAR, Defendant-Appellee. x:

 

APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT
(Cr. No. 02-1-2854)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

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

 

(By:
‘The plaintiff-appellant State of Hawai'i (hereinafter,
“the prosecution”) appeals from the June 10, 2003 judgment of the

circuit court of the first circuit, the Honorable Karl K.

Sakamoto presiding.
On appeal, the prosecution contends that the circuit
ppellee Wesley J. Munar

 

court erred in sentencing the defendant
to probation in Cr. No. 02-1-2854, pursuant to 2002 Haw. Sess. L.
Act 161, § 3 at 572 (codified as Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS)
§ 706-622.5 (Supp. 2002)), rather than to a mandatory minimum
term of imprisonment, pursuant to HRS § 706-606.5 (Supp. 1999),
inasmuch as: (1) HRS § 706-606.5 trumps HRS § 706-622.5 in
situations involving repeat offenders; and (2) Munar’s prior
conviction for unauthorized control of a propelled vehicle, in
violation of HRS § 708-836 (Supp. 2001) (Cr. No. 01-1-2639),
mandated that he be sentenced as a repeat offender.

pen 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 conclude that
‘#*# NOT FOR PUBLICATION in WEST’ S HAWAI'I REPORTS
and PACIFIC REPORTER ***

this court’s decisions in State v. Smith, 103 Hawai'i 228, 81
P.3d 408 (2003), and State v. Walker, 106 Hawai'i 1, 100 P.3d 595

(2004), are entirely dispositive of the present matter.

 

In Smith, “we h{e}ld that, in all cases in which HRS
$ 706-606.5 is applicable, including those in which a defendant
would otherwise be eligible for probation under HRS § 706-622.5,
the circuit courts must sentence defendants pursuant to the
provisions of HRS § 706-606.5.” 103 Hawai'i at 234, 81 P.3d at
aa.

Effective July 1, 2004, the legislature anended HRS
§ 706-622.5. See 2004 Haw. Sess. L. Act 44, $§ 11 and 33,at 214,
227. In our November 4, 2004 published opinion in Walker, we
considered the effect of Act 44 upon the Smith rule. We
concluded (1) that Smith remains consonant with the legislature's
stated purposes in amending HRS § 706-622.5, and (2) that, in any
case, the legislature expressly provided that Act 44 does not
apply retroactively to any “cases involving ‘rights and duties
that matured, penalties that were incurred, and proceedings thet
were begun, before [the] effective date [of Act 44],’ i.e., July
2, 2004." See 106 Hawai'i at 4 6 n.5, 100 P.3d at 598 6 nS
(brackets in original).

In sum, the primacy of HRS § 706-606.5 vie-A-vie HRS
§ 706-622.5 has been established. In his appeal, Munar fails to
demonstrate any flaws in this court's reasoning in either smith
or Walker justifying revisiting the holdings of those opinions.

‘Therefore,
‘** NOT FOR PUBLICATION in WEST’S HAWAI'I REPORTS
‘and PACIFIC REPORTER *

 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the portion of the circuit
court’s judgment sentencing Munar pursuant to HRS § 706-622.5 is
vacated, and we remand this matter to the circuit court for
resentencing in accordance with the provisions of HRS

§ 706-606.5.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, September 26, 2006.

on the briefs:

Mangmang Qiu Brown,
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
for the plaintiff-appellant

Seaee of? naval .
Phyllis J. Hizonake, Pinte
Seputy Public Defender,
for the defendant appellee Bete OS Naeaney Oe
fayne J. muna ay
Yon ducgi