NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻ

I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-21-0000395 

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS 

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I 

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. 

ROMMEL L. BAUTISTA, Defendant-Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT 

(CASE NO. 2CPC-20-0000366) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

(By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and McCullen, JJ.) 

Defendant-Appellant Rommel L. Bautista (Bautista) 

appeals from the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit's March 10, 

2021 Judgment; Conviction and Sentence; Notice of Entry.1 

Following a no-contest plea, Bautista was convicted of 

(1) Assault in the Second Degree, in violation of Hawaii Revised 

Statutes (HRS) § 707-711(1)(a) (Supp. 2018); (2) Terroristic 

Threatening in the First Degree, in violation of HRS § 707-

1 The Honorable Rhonda I.L. Loo presided.

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-21-0000395

28-FEB-2023

11:39 AM

Dkt. 91 MO
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻ

I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

2

716(1)(e) (2014); and (3) Felony Abuse of Family or Household 

Member, in violation of HRS § 709-906(1) and (9) (Supp. 2019).

The circuit court sentenced Bautista to a five-year 

term of imprisonment for each count, to be served consecutively. 

On appeal, Bautista challenges the circuit court's jurisdiction, 

the lawfulness of the prosecution, and the consecutive nature of 

his sentence. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm. 

I. Background

A. Complaint And Committal

On July 27, 2020, the State filed a complaint in the 

District Court of the Second Circuit, charging Bautista with 

seven felony offenses and alleging that all offenses occurred in 

the County of Maui, State of Hawai‘i.2 Finding probable cause, 

2 The Honorable Blaine J. Kobayashi, and the Honorable Kirstin M. 

Hamman presided over the district court proceedings.

The seven charged counts were as follows:

Count 1: Attempted Murder in the Second Degree, in violation of HRS 

§§ 705-500(2) (2014) and 707-701.5 (2014 and Supp. 2018), and 

subject to HRS § 706-656 (2014); 

Count 2: Assault in the First Degree, in violation of HRS § 707-710(1)

(2014);

Count 3: Assault in the Second Degree, in violation of HRS § 707-

711(1)(a);

Count 4: Terroristic Threatening in the First Degree, in violation of 

HRS § 707-716(1)(e);

Count 5: Felony Abuse of Family or Household Member, by strangulation, 

in violation of HRS §§ 709-906(1) and/or (8) (Supp. 2019);

Count 6: Felony Abuse of Family or Household Member, by strangulation, 

in violation of HRS §§ 709-906(1) and/or (8); and 

Count 7: Felony Abuse of Family or Household Member, in the presence of 

a minor, in violation of HRS §§ 709-906(1) and/or (9).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻ

I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

3

the district court committed the case to the circuit court and a 

hearing was scheduled in circuit court for August 12, 2020 at 

8:00 a.m. in Courtroom #4. A case was then initiated in circuit 

court based on that committal.

B. No-Contest Plea

About five months later, Bautista pled no contest to 

Assault in the Second Degree (Count 3), Terroristic Threatening 

in the First Degree (Count 4), and Felony Abuse of Family or 

Household Member, minor present (Count 7) in exchange for 

dismissing the remaining charges of Attempted Murder in the 

Second Degree (Count 1), Assault in the First Degree (Count 2), 

and Felony Abuse of a Family or Household Member, by 

strangulation (Counts 5 and 6). On the no-contest plea form, 

Bautista acknowledged that he was giving "up the right to appeal 

anything that has happened in this case to date" and that the 

circuit court may impose consecutive terms of imprisonment.

During the hearing on Bautista's no-contest plea, the 

circuit court reiterated that "the maximum penalty provided by 

law for these offenses is fifteen years in prison and a $30,000 

fine[,]" and Bautista acknowledged his understanding. The 

circuit court again explained, "So when I mentioned fifteen 

years earlier, that's if I ran everything consecutively, one 

after the other. . . . I got that by adding five plus five plus 

five . . . ." Bautista then requested a continuance to speak 

with his family, and the circuit court granted the request.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻ

I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

4

The next week, the circuit court again reviewed the 

no-contest plea with Bautista and explained that "the maximum 

penalty provided by law for these offenses is a fifteen-year 

prison term and a $30,000 fine[,]" and Bautista acknowledged 

that he understood. Later in the hearing, the circuit court 

reiterated that it "could sentence [him] to the full fifteenyear prison term[,]" and Bautista acknowledged his 

understanding.

After the circuit court's colloquy, Bautista pled nocontest. The circuit court accepted Bautista's plea and ordered 

a presentence report, which was filed with the circuit court.

C. Sentencing

1. State's Argument

During the sentencing hearing, the State requested 

consecutive sentencing based on the circumstances of the 

incident. The State explained that Bautista attacked his wife 

(Wife) because he thought she was having affairs and would not 

admit it. Bautista "slapped her face, and then grabbed her 

throat, impeding her breathing. He also then kicked her in the 

ribs and body and stomped on her chest . . . ." He told her he 

was going to kill her, and "grabbed the ceramic toilet tank 

cover and made a motion like he was going to hit her." When 

Bautista's father banged on the door, Wife seized "the chance to 

grab her six-year-old son and leave the house and call a friend 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻ

I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

5

for help." The friend took them to the police station where she 

was checked by medics and transferred to the emergency room.

Wife had redness and abrasions on her nose, left 

cheek, ear, chest, and back "as well as a lump on the back of 

her head and redness on both sides of her neck." Wife also had 

bruises on her scalp behind her left ear, and on her upper arms 

and lower legs. She was "also diagnosed with a fracture of her 

right second, third, and fourth ribs as well as a collapsed 

lung."

The State acknowledged that Bautista's "family appears 

to have forgiven him" and "would like to see him return home." 

The State, however, noted that Bautista's six-year-old son was 

present during the incident, and "told the police he saw his 

father punch his mother, [and] grab her neck . . . ." The State 

requested that the circuit court sentence Bautista to five years 

imprisonment for each offense, to be served consecutively.

2. Defense's Argument

Defense counsel confirmed that they reviewed the 

presentence report, and nothing needed to be corrected. Defense 

counsel explained that it was Wife that "woke him from a sleep 

and was yelling at him, and that's what started it." Defense 

counsel asked the court to take into account Wife's plea for 

leniency and that he never hit her before. Defense counsel 

explained that Bautista "did not intend to end her life[,]" but 

"was trying to force a confession out of her as to what he 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻ

I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

6

believed to be infidelity and threatened her with the intent to 

make her believe that he might kill her, do her serious harm in 

order to get her to confess."

3. Circuit Court's Decision

After expressing concern for Bautista's son and the 

effects this incident may have on him later, the circuit court 

stated that "there was no part of your wife's body that was not 

untouched." The circuit court recognized that "the doctor at 

the hospital did confirm the extent of her injuries with the 

facial bruising, the collapsed lung, which could have caused 

death, fracture to not one rib but three different ribs . . . ."

"I think the only reason you stopped was perhaps 

because your father was pounding on the front door . . . and 

this gave an opportunity for your wife to get out of the house 

with the six-year-old, your son . . . ."

The circuit court explained that it "had an 

opportunity today to review the options of sentencing" and could 

possibly give probation or concurrent sentences. The circuit 

court confirmed that it heard the arguments and Bautista's 

statement, read the letters submitted by his family and Wife, 

and considered that Bautista had no previous record.

Nonetheless, the circuit court stated that "this is a 

very severe case. . . . And the nature of these -- of these 

charges, though it's come off the attempted murder, are 

extremely serious . . . ." Additionally, the circuit court 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻ

I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

7

stated, "your adult daughter talks about how you folks would 

argue almost every night, and it was so bad that she didn't even 

want to live at home at one point." 

Wife "needs to be protected. Your son needs to be 

protected. The community needs to be protected from his kind of 

behavior." The circuit court sentenced Bautista to a five-year 

term of imprisonment for each of the three convicted offenses, 

to be served consecutively. Bautista filed an untimely notice 

of appeal.3 See Hawai‘i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) 

Rule 4(b) (providing that in a criminal case "the notice of 

appeal shall be filed within 30 days after entry of judgment or 

order appealed from"). 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

A. Jurisdiction 

"[T]he court's jurisdiction to consider matters 

brought before it is a question of law which is subject to de 

novo review on appeal applying the 'right/wrong' standard." 

State v. Lorenzo, 77 Hawai‘i 219, 220, 883 P.2d 641, 642 

(App. 1994) (citations omitted). 

3 In criminal cases, this court has made exceptions to the requirement 

that the notice of appeal be timely filed where "defense counsel has 

inexcusably or ineffectively failed to pursue a defendant's appeal from a 

criminal conviction in the first instance[.]" State v. Irvine, 88 Hawai‘i 

404, 407, 967 P.2d 236, 239 (1998); State v. Chavira, 120 Hawai‘i 255, 203 

P.3d 675, No. 29082, 2009 WL 458772 at *1 (App. Feb. 25, 2009) (SDO). It 

appears that Bautista's former counsel failed to file a timely notice of 

appeal.

 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻ

I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

8

B. Sufficiency Of The Charge 

"Whether a charge sets forth all the essential 

elements of a charged offense is a question of law, which we 

review under the de novo, or right/wrong, standard." State v. 

Wheeler, 121 Hawai‘i 383, 390, 219 P.3d 1170, 1177 (2009) 

(cleaned up). 

C. Sentencing 

Sentencing matters are reviewed for an abuse of 

discretion. State v. Mundon, 121 Hawai‘i 339, 349, 219 P.3d 

1126, 1136 (2009) (quoting State v. Kahapea, 111 Hawai‘i 267, 

278, 141 P.3d 440, 451 (2006)). 

III. Discussion 

In his opening brief, Bautista challenged the 

consecutive nature of his sentence. But, after being granted 

leave to amend his opening brief, Bautista additionally 

challenged the circuit court's subject matter jurisdiction. 

Bautista then submitted an HRAP Rule 28(j) letter to 

this court citing to the Hawai‘i Supreme Court's opinion in State 

v. Obrero, 151 Hawai‘i 472, 517 P.3d 755 (2022), and this court 

ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing addressing 

the effect Obrero has on this case. In his supplemental brief, 

Bautista asserts that his conviction is unlawful in light of 

Obrero.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻ

I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

9

Bautista applied to have this case transferred to the 

Hawai‘i Supreme Court, but that application was rejected. Of the 

three points of error he raises throughout these proceedings, we 

address Bautista's challenge to the circuit court's jurisdiction 

first. 

A. The Circuit Court Had Jurisdiction 

Bautista contends that the circuit court had no 

jurisdiction over his case because the State did not file a 

complaint in the circuit court. To support this contention, 

Bautista asserts that once the district court committed the case 

to circuit court, the State "had to take an active role in 

initiating the proceedings in circuit court by filing a charging 

document. Its failure to do that means that the circuit court's 

subject matter jurisdiction never attached." In his 

supplemental brief, Bautista acknowledges Footnote 12 in Obrero, 

but reiterates that the State "needed to file a 'cognizable' 

charging instrument in the circuit court. Without it, the 

circuit court lacked jurisdiction to convict and sentence" him.

"Jurisdiction is defined as 'the power and authority 

on the part of the court to hear and judicially determine and 

dispose of the cause pending before it.'" Schwartz v. State, 

136 Hawai‘i 258, 262, 361 P.3d 1161, 1165 (2015) (quoting 

State v. Villados, 55 Haw. 394, 396, 520 P.2d 427, 430 (1974)). 

"'[J]urisdiction depends upon the state of affairs existing at 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻ

I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

10

the time it is invoked; once having attached, it . . . is 

retained by a court until fully exhausted by the entry of a 

final judgment.' It is not lost by subsequent events, . . . 

unless a statute provides otherwise." 136 Hawai‘i at 262, 361 

P.3d at 1165 (citation omitted). 

 1. Obrero, HRS, and HRPP 

In Obrero, the Hawai‘i Supreme Court held that the 

State's prosecution of the defendant by complaint instead of 

indictment violated HRS § 801-1 (2014). Obrero, 151 Hawai‘i at 

475, 482, 517 P.3d at 758, 765. Nevertheless, in Footnote 12, 

the supreme court explained that "[t]he unlawfulness of the 

State's prosecution did not deprive the circuit court of 

subject-matter jurisdiction." 151 Hawai‘i at 478 n.12, 517 P.3d 

at 761 n.12. 

The supreme court explained that the State filed six 

separate complaints in the district court. 151 Hawai‘i at 475, 

517 P.3d at 758. But after the district court found probable 

cause and committed the case to circuit court, the State 

consolidated the six complaints into a single complaint, and 

filed that complaint in the circuit court. 151 Hawai‘i at 476, 

476 n.4, 517 P.3d at 759, 759 n.4. 

Quoting HRS § 603-21.5(a)(1) (2016), the supreme court 

explained that "the circuit courts have jurisdiction over 

'criminal offenses cognizable under the laws of the State, 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻ

I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

11

committed within their respective circuits or transferred to 

them for trial by change of venue from some other circuit 

court.'" 151 Hawai‘i at 478 n.12, 517 P.3d at 761 n.12 (citation 

and brackets omitted). Cognizable was defined as "capable of 

being known or recognized, or capable of being judicially tried 

or examined before a designated tribunal; within the court's 

jurisdiction." Id. (citation and internal quotation marks 

omitted). 

The supreme court then concluded that "the State's 

complaint properly invoked the circuit court's subject matter 

jurisdiction" because it alleged offenses recognized under our 

State laws and these offenses were committed in the City and 

County of Honolulu. Id. 

HRS chapter 805 governs criminal procedure in the 

district courts. "When a complaint is made to any prosecuting 

officer of the commission of any offense, the prosecuting 

officer shall examine the complaint, shall reduce the substance 

of the complaint to writing . . . ." HRS § 805-1 (2014). "In 

all cases of arrest for offenses that must be tried in the first 

instance before a jury, or that can be tried only on indictment 

by a grand jury," the judge, "upon the appearance of the 

accused, shall proceed to consider whether there is probable 

cause to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense with 

which the accused is charged." HRS § 805-7 (2014). 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻ

I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

12

"[I]f in the judge's opinion there is probable cause 

to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense" the 

accused is charged with, "the judge shall make out and deliver 

to a police officer a mittimus which may be in the form 

established by the usage and practice of the issuing court." 

HRS § 805-7. "In all criminal cases had before a district judge 

where there has been a commitment as provided in section 805-7, 

. . . the judge, forthwith, shall send to the county attorney or 

prosecuting attorney . . . giving the name of the defendant and 

the date the records were sent to the circuit court . . . ." 

HRS § 805-8 (2014). 

HRS chapter 806 governs criminal procedure in circuit 

court, but contains no requirement to refile a complaint 

following a commitment from district court. Offering some 

guidance, the Hawai‘i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) provide the 

procedure for committing a case to the circuit court.4 "If the 

defendant is held to answer in the circuit court, the court 

shall transmit to the circuit court all papers and articles 

received in evidence at the preliminary hearing and any bail 

received by it." HRPP Rule 5(c)(6) (emphasis added). "Within 7 

4 In Obrero, the supreme court explained that HRPP Rules 5 and 7 

"flatly contradict HRS § 801-1" and "[w]here a court-made rule affecting 

litigants' substantive rights contravenes the dictates of a parallel statute, 

the rule must give way." Obrero, 151 Hawai‘i at 480, 517 P.3d at 763 (quoting 

Cox v. Cox, 138 Hawai‘i 476, 482, 382 P.3d 288, 294 (2016)). The supreme 

court did not, however, expressly declare HRPP Rules 5 and 7 invalid in all 

respects. See id. Moreover, our reference to HRPP Rules 5 and 7 is in the 

context of determining jurisdiction, not the violation of HRS § 801-1.

 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻ

I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

13

days after the district court's oral order of commitment (i) the 

district court shall sign its written order of commitment, 

(ii) the clerk shall enter the district court's written order, 

and (iii) the clerk shall transmit to the circuit court all 

documents in the proceeding . . . ." HRPP Rule 5(c)(7) 

(emphasis added and formatting altered). 

Finally, HRPP Rule 7(h) addresses the court in which a 

charge is filed. HRPP Rule 7(h) first states that "[a]n 

indictment or information shall be filed in the circuit court." 

HRPP Rule 7(h)(1). HRPP Rule 7(h) then states that "[a] 

complaint may be filed in either the district or circuit court; 

provided that a complaint shall not be filed initially in the 

circuit court when it charges (i) a felony, and none of the 3 

conditions set forth in Rule 7(b) of these rules has yet 

occurred," or "(ii) only an offense or offenses other than a 

felony."5 HRPP Rule 7(h)(2) (formatting altered); See HRPP 

5 HRPP Rule 7(b) provides, 

A felony may be prosecuted by a complaint under any of the 

following 3 conditions:

(1) if with respect to that felony the district judge has 

found probable cause at a preliminary hearing and has 

committed the defendant to answer in the circuit court 

pursuant to Rule 5(c) of these rules; 

(2) if, pursuant to 5(c)(2) of these rules, the defendant

has waived in open court the right to a preliminary 

hearing; or 

(3) if, pursuant to 7(c) of these rules, the defendant has 

waived in open court the right to an indictment.

(Formatting altered.)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻ

I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

14

Rule 2 (providing that these rules "shall be construed to secure 

simplicity in procedure, fairness in administration and the 

elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay"). 

In sum, nothing in HRS chapters 805 and 806, and HRPP 

Rules 5 and 7, require the State to refile a complaint in the 

circuit court after the district court committed the case to the 

circuit court upon a finding of probable cause. 

 2. Analysis 

Here, the State filed a complaint with seven felony 

counts in the district court. According to the court minutes, 

the district court held a hearing and found probable cause as to 

those seven counts.6 After finding probable cause, the district 

court orally committed the case, and each count, to the circuit 

court. 

That same day, the district court entered a "Committal 

to the Circuit Court" and "Amended Order and Notice of Entry of 

Order," committing Bautista's case to the circuit court for 

further proceedings and ordering Bautista to appear in the 

circuit court on August 12, 2020 at 8:00 a.m. Also on that day, 

a circuit court case was initiated based on the district court's 

commitment with service made to the parties.7

6 Bautista did not order transcripts of this proceeding and did not 

file a notice indicating that he was ordering fewer than all transcripts. 

See HRAP Rule 10(b)(4). 

7 The "Commitment to Circuit Court" docketed as No. 1 does not contain 

a readable pdf.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻ

I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

15

That charging instrument filed in the district court 

and committed to the circuit court alleged that Bautista 

violated HRS §§ 705-500(2) and 707-701.5, 707-710(1), 707-

711(1)(a), 707-716(1)(e), 709-906(1) and/or (8), and 709-906(1) 

and/or (9), all of which are recognized offenses under Hawai‘i 

law. That same complaint also alleged that the offenses 

occurred "in the Division of Wailuku, County of Maui, State of 

Hawaii," which is in the Second Circuit. HRS § 603-1 (2016) 

("The second judicial circuit includes the islands of Maui, 

Molokai, Lanai, Kahoolawe, and Molokini.") Because the 

complaint charged Bautista with cognizable offenses within the 

second circuit, the requirements of HRS § 603-21.5(a)(1) were 

satisfied. 

Bautista does not cite to, and we have not found, a 

statute or rule that requires the State to refile a complaint in 

the circuit court after the district court has committed the 

case to circuit court upon a finding of probable cause. 

Moreover, we decline to interpret Footnote 12 in Obrero as 

requiring as much because the complaint committed to the circuit 

court satisfied the requirements of HRS § 603-21.5(a)(1) to 

invoke the circuit court's jurisdiction. See 151 Hawai‘i at 478 

n.12, 517 P.3d at 761 n.12. 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻ

I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

16

B. Complaint Presumed Valid 

Bautista next contends that the State violated HRS 

§ 801-1 by failing to obtain an indictment, and that the 

"prosecution against [him] is unlawful and the judgment must be 

vacated." 

HRS § 801-1 provides, "No person shall be subject to 

be tried and sentenced to be punished in any court, for an 

alleged offense, unless upon indictment or information, except 

for offenses within the jurisdiction of a district court or in 

summary proceedings for contempt." As mentioned, the supreme 

court in Obrero held that the "State's prosecution of Obrero 

[was] unlawful because it [had] not complied with the statute's 

indictment requirement." Obrero, 151 Hawai‘i at 478, 517 P.3d at 

761. 

However, the supreme court noted that 

had Obrero challenged the State's failure to comply with 

HRS § 801-1 for the first time on appeal, we would presume 

the validity of the complaint against him and would not 

reverse his conviction absent a showing that the complaint 

prejudiced him or could not be construed to charge a crime.

151 Hawai‘i at 478 n.11, 517 P.3d at 761 n.11 (citing Wheeler, 

121 Hawai‘i at 399, 219 P.3d at 1186). In Wheeler, the supreme 

court explained that 

there is a 'presumption of validity,' . . . for charges 

challenged subsequent to a conviction. In those 

circumstances, this court will 'not reverse a conviction 

based upon a defective indictment [or complaint] unless the 

defendant can show prejudice or that the indictment [or 

complaint] cannot within reason be construed to charge a 

crime.'
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻ

I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

17

Wheeler, 121 Hawai‘i at 399-400, 219 P.3d at 1186-87 (citations 

omitted, brackets in original). 

Here, Bautista raised the State's violation of HRS 

§ 801-1 for the first time on appeal in his supplemental brief. 

Thus, as the supreme court explained, we presume the complaint 

is valid. See generally, 151 Hawai‘i at 478 n.11, 517 P.3d at 

761 n.11. Bautista made no showing that the complaint 

prejudiced him. And, as discussed above, the complaint alleged 

recognizable offenses under Hawai‘i law. Absent a showing of 

prejudice or that the charges could not be construed as a crime, 

we cannot vacate Bautista's judgment of conviction and sentence. 

C. No Abuse Of Discretion In Consecutive Sentencing 

Finally, Bautista contends that the circuit court 

"abused its discretion when it imposed consecutive terms of 

imprisonment." (Formatting altered.) Bautista argues that the 

"circuit court's justification is unsupported in the record and 

is not based on a rational and fair decision." Bautista asserts 

that the circuit court ignored Wife's pleas for leniency and 

"based its sentence on the speculative possibility that [Wife] 

could have died and that she had been strangled[,]" and in so 

doing, relied on an uncharged crime. 

HRS § 706-606 (2014) delineates the factors the 

circuit court must consider in imposing a sentence: 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻ

I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

18

(1) The nature and circumstances of the offense and the 

history and characteristics of the defendant;

(2) The need for the sentence imposed:

(a) To reflect the seriousness of the offense, to 

promote respect for law, and to provide just 

punishment for the offense;

(b) To afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;

(c) To protect the public from further crimes of the 

defendant; and

(d) To provide the defendant with needed educational or 

vocational training, medical care, or other 

correctional treatment in the most effective 

manner;

(3) The kinds of sentences available; and

(4) The need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities 

among defendants with similar records who have been found 

guilty of similar conduct.

(Formatting altered.) 

"A sentencing judge generally has broad discretion in 

imposing a sentence." State v. Barrios, 139 Hawai‘i 321, 328, 

389 P.3d 916, 923 (2016) (citation omitted). "Further, '[t]he 

weight to be given the factors set forth in HRS § 706–606 in 

imposing sentence is a matter generally left to the discretion 

of the sentencing court, taking into consideration the 

circumstances of each case.'" Id. (citations omitted). 

"[A] sentencing court is additionally required to 

explain on the record its reasoning based on the HRS § 706–

606 factors to ensure that its 'decision to impose consecutive 

sentences was deliberate, rational, and fair.'" 139 Hawai‘i at 

335, 389 P.3d at 930 (quoting State v. Hussein, 122 Hawai‘i 495, 

510, 229 P.3d 313, 328 (2010)). However, "the sentencing court 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻ

I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

19

is not required to articulate and explain its conclusions with 

respect to every factor listed in HRS § 706-606, but rather must 

articulate its reasoning only with respect to those factors it 

relies on in imposing consecutive sentences." See Barrios, 139 

Hawai‘i at 336, 389 P.3d at 931 (cleaned up). 

Here, the circuit court considered the nature and 

circumstances of the offense. The circuit court stated that 

"there was no part of your wife's body that was not untouched." 

The circuit court recognized that "the doctor at the hospital 

did confirm the extent of her injuries with the facial bruising, 

the collapsed lung, which could have caused death, [and] 

fracture to not one rib but three different ribs . . . ." 

The circuit court noted concern for Bautista's sixyear-old son, and further noted that it thought "the only reason 

you stopped was perhaps because your father was pounding on the 

front door . . . and this gave an opportunity for your wife to 

get out of the house with the six-year-old, your son . . . ." 

The circuit court also considered the possible 

sentences available. The circuit court explained that it "had 

an opportunity today to review the options of sentencing" and 

could possibly give probation or concurrent sentences. The 

court confirmed that it heard the arguments and Bautista's 

statement, read the letters submitted by his family and Wife, 

and considered that Bautista had no previous record. 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻ

I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

20

The circuit court then went on to consider the need 

for the sentence imposed. The circuit court stated that "this 

is a very severe case. . . . [Y]our adult daughter talks about 

how you folks would argue almost every night, and it was so bad 

that she didn't even want to live at home at one point." The 

circuit court explained that Wife "needs to be protected. Your 

son needs to be protected. The community needs to be protected 

from his kind of behavior."

Turning to Bautista's assertion that the circuit court 

relied on uncharged crimes of attempted murder and felony abuse 

by strangulation, we must consider the circuit court's 

statements in context. The circuit court stated, "[s]o these 

offenses are so serious you could have killed your wife. She 

had a collapsed lung, and you broke at least three of her ribs, 

not to mention all the bruising from head to toe." The circuit 

court also stated,

[s]o if something so silly as accusing her of an affair can 

set you off to the point where you break her ribs, strangle 

her, and knock her to the ground, threaten to kill her -- I 

think she did say at one point, on a scale of one to ten, 

she rated her fear as a ten.

These statements reflect the seriousness of Bautista's conduct 

and the need "to protect the public," which are permissible 

considerations when imposing consecutive sentencing. 

Based on the record before us, we cannot say that the 

circuit court's sentence was arbitrary or capricious, or that 

the circuit court refused to consider Bautista's contentions. 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻ

I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

21

See Barrios, 139 Hawai‘i at 328, 389 P.3d at 923. Nor can we say 

that the circuit court "clearly exceeded the bounds of reason or 

disregarded rules or principles of law or practice." Id. 

IV. Conclusion 

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the circuit 

court's March 10, 2021 Judgment; Conviction and Sentence; Notice 

of Entry. 

 DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, February 28, 2023. 

On the briefs: 

Benjamin E. Lowenthal, 

Deputy Public Defender, 

for Defendant-Appellant. 

Gerald K. Enriques, 

Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, 

County of Maui, 

for Plaintiff-Appellee. 

/s/ Katherine G. Leonard 

Presiding Judge 

/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth 

Associate Judge 

/s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen 

Associate Judge