Title: State v. Kalaola

State: hawaii

Issuer: Hawaii Supreme Court

Document:

*** NOTFOR PUBLICATION ***

 

No. 26687

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAL

  

OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee,

 

91:8 HY {Oe 43s son

CLINT KELAT KALAOLA, Defendant -Appellant.

 

APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT
(CR. No. 98-0699)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, and Duffy, J3.;
‘Acoba, J., Concurring)

 

Defendant-appellant Clint Kelai Kalaola appeals from
the findings of facts (FOFs), conclusions of law (CoLs), and
order of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, the Honoreble
Sandra A. Simms presiding, filed on May 26, 2004, denying
Kalacla’s Hawai'i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 35 motion
to dismiss his conviction of and sentence for habitually driving
under the influence of intoxicating liguor (habitual DUI),
in violation of Hawai'i Revised statutes (HRS) § 291-4.4

(2995), and reduce the sentence (Rule 35 notion).

\ RS § 291-4.4 provided, in relevant part, that:
Mabitually driving under the influence of intoxtesting
Liquor or Gruge. (2) A pereon commits the offense of
habitually driving under the influence of intexieating
Liguor or rugs if, during 3 ten-year period the person hae
been convicted three or more tines for'a driving under the
influence offense; snd
(G) © The person operates or agsuses actual phyaical
Control of the operation of any vehscle while
Gnder the influence of sntoxicating liquor,
Yeoneinued...)

 

    

 

 

 

aad
*** NOTFOR PUBLICATION ***

 

on appeal, Kalaola contends that the circuit court
erred in denying his Rule 35 motion after he had offered evidence
that two of his four predicate DUI convictions used to support
his habitual DUI conviction were dismissed by the district court.
Specifically, Kaleola asserts that: (1) HRPP Rule 35 clearly
allows him to raise a post-judgment challenge to an illegal
sentence at any time; (2) his plea of nolo contendere, or “no
contest,” to the habitual DUI charge did not bar his right to
attack any of the predicate prior DUI convictions upon which the
habitual DUI offense was based; and (3) his post-judgment attack
on the habitual DUI conviction was permissible under state v.
‘Shimabukuro, 100 Hawai'i 324, 60 P.3d 274 (2002), and State v.
Veikoso, 102 Hawai'i 219, 74 P.3d 575 (2003).

Upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to

the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we

 

hold that:

*(..-eontinuea)
hneaning that the person is under the influence
OF intoxicating Liguor in an asount sufficient
to impair the persons nornal mental faculties
Gr ability to care for oneself and guard again
eaeusley;

(2) The person operates or assumes actual physical
control of the operation of any venicle with .08
of nore grans of alcohol per one hundred
liliiicere or cubic centimeters of blood or .08
Gr nore grans cf alcohol per hundred ten liters
Of breathy)

 

 

   

 

 

 

(ec) fiabitualty driving under the influence of intoxicating
Liquer or drugs is @ class ¢ felony.

(Bold emphasis in original.)

 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

 

 

(2) the circuit court did not err in concluding that
Kalaola “has no renedy under (HRPP] Rule 35" because he failed to
file his Rule 35 motion within the ninety-day time period
mandated by HREP Rule 35° or pursuant to ERPP Rule 40.

(2) the circuit court did not err in concluding
that Kalaola “waived his right to challenge the factual basis
that he had been convicted of DUI, a violation of HRS § 291-4,
three times within ten (10) years prior to the commission of the
[habitual] offense" in view of the fact that Kalaola
unconditionally, knowingly and voluntarily pled no contest to the
habitual DUI chase. See State v. Morin, 71 Haw. 159, 162-63,
785 P.2d 1316, 1318 (1990); and

(3) the eireuit court did not err in concluding that

there was “no basis to reduce the sentence within either

 

> At the tine Kalaola filed hie motion, HRPP Rule 35 provided, in
relevant part, that:

a) Correction of rilega? Sentence. the court may
correct an illegsl sensence at any time and ty correce a
jentence imposed in an illega: Within the tine
provided hereia for the reauetion of sentence. A.notion
tade_by a defendant to correct an_illecal sentence more than
So dave after the sentence Le Iaposed shall -be nade porsuear
Eo-Rule 40 of tnebe rules. A motion to correct a sentence
Ehat is made within the 90 day tine period shall enpower the

© Sa such notion even though the tine hae

 

 

 

 

court to
expires

 

(italics in original) (Underscored emphasis added.)

 

> HREP Rule 40(a), se amended effective Duly 2, 2003, provides, in
‘evant part

 

() .. At any tine but net prior to final
Judgnent, any person may sesk relief Under the procedure set
forth in thie rule from the juognent of conviction, oni,
inter alia.) the { | ground(]

Git) that the sentence ie illegal

 

 
 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***

 

{Shimabukuro or Veikoso] as the procedural and factual history in
this case are distinguished from those aspects of the other two
cases" because *(nJone of [Kalaola’s] pricr DUI convictions [ ]
had been vacated at the time he pled guilty,” Veikoso, 102
Hawai'i 223, 74 P.3d at 579 (distinguishing Shimabukuro)

(emphasis added). Moreover, unlike the defendants in
Shimabukuro, 100 Hawai'i at 225-26, 60 P.3d at 275-76, and

Weikoso, 102 Hawai‘i at 221, 74 P.3¢ at 577, Kalaola’s plea was

unconditional. See Morin, 71 Haw. at 162, 785 P.2d at 1318.
‘Therefore,

IT 18 HEREBY ORDERED that the May 26, 2004 order of the
Circuit Court of the First Circuit denying Kalaola’s motion to
Gismiss the habitual DUI conviction and sentence filed pursuant
to HRPP Rule 35 is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawas', September 30, 2005.

on the briefs Grr

Karen T. Nakagone, A irQoccue—
for the defendant appellant
Clint Kelai Kalaola
Pee ON ae ork
Ryan Yeh, ,
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Una «Rut h-
for the plaintiff-appellee b
State of Hawai'i

RENCH

Z concur in the result only.

Goose,
é Ss