Title: State v. Lanosa

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

s#* NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

No. 25633

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAZ’

 
 

BI :6)HY Ol YYW 90N2

STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee,

ROONEY S. LANOSA, algo known as RODNEY S. LANOZA,
also known as RODNEY A. LANOZA, Defendant-Appellant.

a

APPEAL FROM THE SECOND CIRCUIT COURT
(cr. No. 1-1-0292)

‘ON oRDE:
(ey: Moon, C.J., Levinson, and Nakayama, JJ., and Duffy, Jv,
dissenting, with whom Acoba, J., joins)

‘the defendant-appellant Rodney S. Lanosa appeals from
the January 17, 2003 judgment of the circuit court of the second
cizcuit, the Honorable Joel £. August presiding.

on appeal, Lanosa contends that (1) “the police failed
to scrupulously honor [his] wish not to give @ statement”; (2) he
sas deprived of . . . a fair and impartial trial by jury taint";
and (3) the circuit “court abused [its] discretion in sentencing
[tanosa) to an enhanced prison term on factors that vere not
established by a jury(,] . . - stipulated to by (Lanosa], (or)
based upon @ prior conviction.”

upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to
the azgunents advanced and the issues raised, we affirm the
circuit court's January 17, 2003 judgment for the following
xeasons:

(2) Tnasmuch as the record on appeal contains

substantial evidence in support of the circuit court's findings

aan
‘4* NOP FOR PUBLICATION *#1

of fact (FOFs) that “[t]here appear(ed] to be no evidence .

of physical mistreatment . .., .. . verbal threats(,] . - -
coercion . . . of promise[(s)],” and that Lanosa “did not appear
to be disoriented in any way, but . . . appeared to answer the

questions appropriately [and] to be alert”; and these FOFs fail
to engender a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has
been committed,” the circuit court did not clearly err in so
finding.

(2) Lanosa’s refusal to make a statement to Detective
Silva did not operate as an ongoing barrier to the admissibility
of a separate statement -- concerning a different matter,
elicited by a different detective (Lee), two hours after
Detective Lee obtained Lanosa’s signature on a different waiver.
See State v. Usaniza, 68 Haw. 28, 31, 702 P.2d 1352, 1355 (1985)
("[T)he right to remain silent does not create a per se
proscription of infinite duration upon any further police-
initiated questions; the test being whether assertion of the
right was scrupulously honored.”) (citing Michigan v. Mosely, 423
v.8. 96 (1975).

(2) Lanosa waived his objection to alleged jury taint.
Notwithstanding ite voir dire of juror Greg Jones, the defense
never actually objected to his continued participation as a
juror. Confronted by trial-court error, the defendant may not
play “wait and see,” crying “Foul!” if and when he is convicted.

(4) Sven assuming axguende that Lanosa was “no longer
under the influence of crystal methamphetamine," the circuit

court’s sentencing Lanosa to a mandatory minimum term as a
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***
multiple offender,” see Hawai'i Revised Statutes § 706-662(4),
was based upon his simultaneous and multiple convictions by the
Jury. Accordingly, the circuit court did not violate Lanosa’s
rights under the sixth amendment to the United States
Constitution. See generally State v. Rivera, 106 Hawai'i 146,
102 P.3d 1044 (2004).

(5) We decline to exercise our equitable discretion
pursuant to the plain error doctrine, inasmuch as this outcome
does not appear to jeopardize Lanosa’s “substantial rights." See
State v. Cullen, 86 Hawai'i 1, 8, 946 P.2d 955, 962 (1997).

‘Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment from which the
appeal is taken is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, March 10, 2006.

on the briefs: Gf

Shawn A. Luiz, :
for the defendant-appeiiant BERT
Rodney S. Lanosa

Arlen Y. Watanabe, Ree rane ade

Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
for the plaintiff-appellee
State of Hawai'i