Title: Silk v. State

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

LAW LIBRARY

No. 26973

         

IW THE SUPREME COURT OF THE stare oF HawarT#I
VERNON SILK, Petit ioner-Appellant-Petitionefia|

agaud

vu
109 4190
wiv LVI

nO °6 WY 1 Ayn (ood

STATE OF HAWAI'I, Respondent-Appellee-Respondersi}.

 

CERTIORART TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
(S.P.P. No, 03-1-0049)

ORDER DISNISSING CERTIORARI PROCEEDING
(By: Moon, C.J. Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba and Duffy, JJ.)

on March 29, 2007, the petitioner-appellant-petitioner
vernon Silk filed an application for a writ of certiorari urging
us to review the sunmary disposition order of the Intermediate
court of Appeals (ICA) in Silk v. State, No. 26973 (Sept. 21,
2006). On May 2, 2007, we accepted Silk’s application. on May

 

11, 2007, the respondent-appellee-respondent State of Hawai'i
Ihereinafter, “the prosecution”] submitted an uncontested motion
to supplement the record on appeal.

upon carefully reviewing the record on appeal and the
prosecution’s motion and its attached “Exhibit A,” it appears

that

 

(2) On May 12 and 18, 2005, after the Hawai'i Paroling
Authority (HPA) handed down its June 9, 2003 order, which is the
basis for Silk’s Hawai's Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 40
petition and the subject of the present application, the HPA
entered and delivered to Silk, but not the parties’ counsel,
a corrected order that, at least colorably, addresses Silk's

objections.
(2) In general, “no new evidence shall be introduced in
the supreme court.” Hawai'i Revised Statutes § 641-2 (Supp.
2004). Nevertheless, Exhibit A is admissible, even on appeal, as
evidence of an adjudicative fact of which we may take notice, to
wit, the HPA's subsequent proceedings. See Hawai"i Rules of
Evidence Rules 201(b) and (f) & cmt., 1003, and 1008.
Accordingly, we have considered Exhibit A and thereupon recognize
that Silk’s appeal to the ICA and his present application are
moot.

(3) If Silk wishes to attack the HPA's May 12, 2005
corrected order, he should undertake (a) a request for reduction
of minimum term of imprisonment pursuant to Hawai'i
Administrative Rules § 23-700-26 and -27 (1992), if he is
otherwise eligible, and/or (b) a new HREP Rule 40 petition.
Therefore,

IT 18 HEREBY ORDERED that: (1) the prosecution’ s
May 11, 2007 motion 1s granted; and (2) the certiorari proceeding
is dismissed on the basis that the application was improvidently
accepted.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, May 31, 2007.
on the application:

Stuart N. Fujioka, Z
of Nishioka & Fujioka, for the :
petitioner-appellant-petitioner

Vernon Silk Se

on the motio

Lisa M. Itomura and Bryan C. Yee, Keane, atti
Deputy Attorneys General, for the
respondent appel lee-respondent
State of Hawari