* * * N O T F O R P U B L I C A T I O N I N W E S T ’ S H A W A I # I R E P O R T S A N D P A C I F I C R E P O R T E R * * *



## SCWC-15-0000150

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

ROY RITA, Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF HAWAI # I, Respondent/Respondent-Appellee,

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-15-0000150; S.P.P. NO. 13-1-0001)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

( B y : R e c k t e n w a l d

, C

. J

. , N a k a y a m a , M c K e n n a , P o l l a c k

, a n d W i l s o n , J J

. )



## Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant Roy Rita (Rita) seeks

review of the Intermediate Court of Appeals’ (ICA) Judgment on

Appeal, which affirmed the Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit’s

(circuit court) order denying Rita’s supplemental claims to his

second Hawai # i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 40 petition

for post-conviction relief without a hearing. We vacate the

ICA’s Judgment on Appeal and remand to the circuit court to hold Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-15-0000150

08-NOV-2018

08:01 AM* * * N O T F O R P U B L I C A T I O N I N W E S T ’ S H A W A I # I R E P O R T S A N D P A C I F I C R E P O R T E R * * *



## a HRPP Rule 40 evidentiary hearing on Rita’s claim that counsel

were ineffective for failing to challenge the sufficiency of his

indictment.

On June 17, 2002, Rita was indicted and charged with,

inter alia, one count of continuous sexual assault of a minor

under the age of fourteen years, in violation of Hawai # i Revised

Statutes (HRS) § 707-733.5, which stated: 1

D u r i n g t h e p e r i o d b e t w e e n t h e 7 t h d a y o f J u n e , 1 9 9 9

t h r o u g h t h e 2 3 r d d a y o f O c t o b e r , 2 0 0 1

, i n t h e C o u n t y o f

K a u a i

, S t a t e o f H a w a i i

, R O Y R I T A h a d r e c u r r i n g a c c e s s t o

[ m i n o r ]

, a m i n o r u n d e r t h e a g e o f f o u r t e e n ( 1 4 ) y e a r s , a n d

d i d e n g a g e i n t h r e e o r m o r e a c t s o f s e x u a l p e n e t r a t i o n o r

s e x u a l c o n t a c t w i t h [ m i n o r ] o v e r a p e r i o d o f t i m e , b u t w h i l e

[ m i n o r ] w a s u n d e r t h e a g e o f f o u r t e e n ( 1 4 ) y e a r s , t h e r e b y

c o m m i t t i n g t h e o f f e n s e o f C o n t i n u o u s S e x u a l A s s a u l t o f a

M i n o r U n d e r t h e A g e o f F o u r t e e n ( 1 4 ) Y e a r s , i n v i o l a t i o n o f

[ H R S § 7 0 7

- 7 3 3

. 5 ]

.



## At the time of trial, the complaining witness was twelve years

old. The jury found Rita guilty of the continuous sexual assault

charge. Rita appealed his conviction, which this court

2

H R S § 7 0 7

- 7 3 3

. 5 ( S u p p

. 1 9 9 7 ) p r o v i d e d i n r e l e v a n t p a r t : 1

C o n t i n u o u s s e x u a l a s s a u l t o f a m i n o r u n d e r t h e a g e o f

f o u r t e e n y e a r s

. ( 1 ) A n y p e r s o n w h o :

( a ) E i t h e r r e s i d e s i n t h e s a m e h o m e w i t h a m i n o r

u n d e r t h e a g e o f f o u r t e e n y e a r s o r h a s r e c u r r i n g

a c c e s s t o t h e m i n o r ; a n d

( b ) E n g a g e s i n t h r e e o r m o r e a c t s o f s e x u a l

p e n e t r a t i o n o r s e x u a l c o n t a c t w i t h t h e m i n o r

o v e r a p e r i o d o f t i m e , b u t w h i l e t h e m i n o r i s

u n d e r t h e a g e o f f o u r t e e n y e a r s , i s g u i l t y o f t h e o f f e n s e o f c o n t i n u o u s s e x u a l a s s a u l t o f a

m i n o r u n d e r t h e a g e o f f o u r t e e n y e a r s

.

. . . .

( 4 ) C o n t i n u o u s s e x u a l a s s a u l t o f a m i n o r u n d e r t h e a g e

o f f o u r t e e n y e a r s i s a c l a s s A f e l o n y

.

T h e H o n o r a b l e C l i f f o r d L

. N a k e a p r e s i d e d o v e r t h e j u r y t r i a l a n d 2

R i t a ’ s f i r s t H R P P R u l e 4 0 p e t i t i o n

.



## 2* * * N O T F O R P U B L I C A T I O N I N W E S T ’ S H A W A I # I R E P O R T S A N D P A C I F I C R E P O R T E R * * *



## affirmed. State v. Rita, No. 25836, 2004 WL 909731 (Haw. Apr.

29, 2004) (SDO).

On September 27, 2004, Rita filed his first HRPP Rule

40 petition pro se. The circuit court denied Rita’s first HRPP 3

H R P P R u l e 4 0 ( 2 0 0 6 ) p r o v i d e s i n r e l e v a n t p a r t : 3

( a ) P r o c e e d i n g s a n d g r o u n d s

. T h e p o s t

- c o n v i c t i o n

p r o c e e d i n g e s t a b l i s h e d b y t h i s r u l e s h a l l e n c o m p a s s a l l

c o m m o n l a w a n d s t a t u t o r y p r o c e d u r e s f o r t h e s a m e p u r p o s e , i n c l u d i n g h a b e a s c o r p u s a n d c o r a m n o b i s ; p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e

f o r e g o i n g s h a l l n o t b e c o n s t r u e d t o l i m i t t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y

o f r e m e d i e s i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t o r o n d i r e c t a p p e a l

. S a i d

p r o c e e d i n g s h a l l b e a p p l i c a b l e t o j u d g m e n t s o f c o n v i c t i o n

a n d t o c u s t o d y b a s e d o n j u d g m e n t s o f c o n v i c t i o n , a s f o l l o w s :

( 1 ) F r o m J u d g m e n t

. A t a n y t i m e b u t n o t p r i o r t o f i n a l

j u d g m e n t

, a n y p e r s o n m a y s e e k r e l i e f u n d e r t h e

p r o c e d u r e s e t f o r t h i n t h i s r u l e f r o m t h e j u d g m e n t o f

c o n v i c t i o n , o n t h e f o l l o w i n g g r o u n d s :

( i ) t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t w a s o b t a i n e d o r s e n t e n c e

i m p o s e d i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e

U n i t e d S t a t e s o r o f t h e S t a t e o f H a w a i # i ;

. . . .

( 3 ) I n a p p l i c a b i l i t y

. R u l e 4 0 p r o c e e d i n g s s h a l l n o t b e

a v a i l a b l e a n d r e l i e f t h e r e u n d e r s h a l l n o t b e g r a n t e d

w h e r e t h e i s s u e s s o u g h t t o b e r a i s e d h a v e b e e n

p r e v i o u s l y r u l e d u p o n o r w e r e w a i v e d

. E x c e p t f o r a

c l a i m o f i l l e g a l s e n t e n c e , a n i s s u e i s w a i v e d i f t h e

p e t i t i o n e r k n o w i n g l y a n d u n d e r s t a n d i n g l y f a i l e d t o

r a i s e i t a n d i t c o u l d h a v e b e e n r a i s e d b e f o r e t h e

t r i a l

, a t t h e t r i a l

, o n a p p e a l

, i n a h a b e a s c o r p u s

p r o c e e d i n g o r a n y o t h e r p r o c e e d i n g a c t u a l l y c o n d u c t e d

,

o r i n a p r i o r p r o c e e d i n g a c t u a l l y i n i t i a t e d u n d e r t h i s

r u l e , a n d t h e p e t i t i o n e r i s u n a b l e t o p r o v e t h e

e x i s t e n c e o f e x t r a o r d i n a r y c i r c u m s t a n c e s t o j u s t i f y

t h e p e t i t i o n e r ’ s f a i l u r e t o r a i s e t h e i s s u e

. T h e r e i s

a r e b u t t a b l e p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t a f a i l u r e t o a p p e a l a

r u l i n g o r t o r a i s e a n i s s u e i s a k n o w i n g a n d

u n d e r s t a n d i n g f a i l u r e

.

. . . .

( f ) H e a r i n g s

. I f a p e t i t i o n a l l e g e s f a c t s t h a t i f

p r o v e n w o u l d e n t i t l e t h e p e t i t i o n e r t o r e l i e f

, t h e c o u r t

s h a l l g r a n t a h e a r i n g w h i c h m a y e x t e n d o n l y t o t h e i s s u e s

r a i s e d i n t h e p e t i t i o n o r a n s w e r

. H o w e v e r , t h e c o u r t m a y

d e n y a h e a r i n g i f t h e p e t i t i o n e r ’ s c l a i m i s p a t e n t l y

f r i v o l o u s a n d i s w i t h o u t t r a c e o f s u p p o r t e i t h e r i n t h e

( c o n t i n u e d

. . . )



## 3* * * N O T F O R P U B L I C A T I O N I N W E S T ’ S H A W A I # I R E P O R T S A N D P A C I F I C R E P O R T E R * * *



## Rule 40 petition without a hearing. The ICA affirmed the circuit

court’s decision on July 27, 2006. Rita v. State, No. 27093,

2006 WL 2077565 (App. July 27, 2006) (SDO). Rita did not apply

for a writ of certiorari to this court.

On March 6, 2013, Rita filed a second HRPP Rule 40

petition pro se. The circuit court denied Rita’s second HRPP

Rule 40 petition without a hearing. However, on appeal, the ICA 4



## vacated the circuit court’s order. Rita v. State, No. CAAP-13-

0003270, 2014 WL 1758390 (App. Apr. 29, 2014) (SDO). The ICA

determined that the circuit court should not have denied Rita’s

second HRPP Rule 40 petition without affording him the benefit of

counsel, and remanded the case “so that [Rita] may receive the

assistance of counsel before disposition of his Rule 40

petition.”

On November 19, 2014, Rita, now represented by private

counsel, filed a “Supplemental Claims for Relief to Petitioner

Roy Rita’s HRPP Rule 40 Petition for Post Conviction Relief,

Filed on March 6, 2013” (Supplemental Claims Petition) that

further raised two grounds for relief:

( a ) T h e c o u r t w a s w i t h o u t j u r i s d i c t i o n a s t h e c h a r g e

f a i l e d t o s t a t e t h e n e c e s s a r y s t a t e o f m i n d i n t h e c h a r g e ,

a s w e l l a s a l l o f t h e e l e m e n t s o f t h e o f f e n s e , t o w i t

, t h a t

t h e D e f e n d a n t ( P e t i t i o n e r ) a n d t h e C o m p l a i n a n t w e r e n o t

m a r r i e d t o e a c h o t h e r

. . . .

(

. . . c o n t i n u e d ) 3

r e c o r d o r f r o m o t h e r e v i d e n c e s u b m i t t e d b y t h e p e t i t i o n e r

.

T h e H o n o r a b l e K a t h l e e n N

. A

. W a t a n a b e p r e s i d e d o v e r R i t a ’ s S e c o n d 4

H R P P R u l e 4 0 P e t i t i o n

.



## 4* * * N O T F O R P U B L I C A T I O N I N W E S T ’ S H A W A I # I R E P O R T S A N D P A C I F I C R E P O R T E R * * *

. . . .

( b ) B o t h t r i a l c o u n s e l a n d a p p e l l a t e c o u n s e l w e r e

i n e f f e c t i v e f o r f a i l i n g t o a s s e r t t h i s j u r i s d i c t i o n a l i s s u e ,

r e s p e c t i v e l y b e f o r e t h e t r i a l a n d a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s

.



## Rita stated that he was raising these claims for the first time

because he “was unaware that the Indictment as drafted by the

State was defective.”

On February 23, 2015, the circuit court denied Rita’s

Supplemental Claims Petition without a hearing. The ICA

affirmed. The ICA concluded that, even assuming arguendo that

Rita’s claims were not waived, Rita’s trial and appellate counsel

were not ineffective for failing to challenge the sufficiency of

Rita’s indictment.

We interpret Rita’s application for writ of certiorari

to present one question: whether the ICA erred “in failing to

grant [Rita] relief where the indictment fail[ed] to allege facts

sufficient to state an offense[.]” Specifically, Rita states

that his continuous sexual assault charge “[does not allege a]

factual allegation that Rita and complaining witness were not

married.” (Formatting altered.) Because it was clear before Rita

was charged that an indictment charging sexual assault of a minor

under the age of fourteen must include the “essential element”

that the defendant be aware that the minor was not married to

him, we conclude that Rita has alleged facts which, if proven,

raise a colorable claim that counsel were ineffective for failing

to challenge the sufficiency of the indictment. Accordingly, he

5* * * N O T F O R P U B L I C A T I O N I N W E S T ’ S H A W A I # I R E P O R T S A N D P A C I F I C R E P O R T E R * * *



## is entitled to a HRPP Rule 40 evidentiary hearing on this claim.

See HRPP Rule 40(f).

In State v. Arceo, this court recited the four elements

of the offense of sexual assault in the third degree pursuant to

HRS § 707-732(1)(b) (“sexual assault of a minor”) that the State

was required to prove in order to establish guilt. 84 Hawai # i 5



## 1, 15, 928 P.2d 843, 857 (1996). One such requirement was “that

[the defendant be] aware that the Minor was not married to him,

(i.e., the requisite knowing state of mind with respect to the

attendant circumstance implicit in ‘sexual contact’)[.]” Id. 6



## (citations omitted).

It is true that under the post-conviction liberal

construction rule, “we liberally construe charges challenged for

the first time on appeal.” State v. Wheeler, 121 Hawai # i 383,

399, 219 P.3d 1170, 1186 (2009). However, we have also stated

that an “accusation must sufficiently allege all of the essential

elements of the offense charged.” State v. Jendrusch, 58 Haw.

279, 281, 567 P.2d 1242, 1244 (1977) (emphasis added). “A charge

defective in this regard amounts to a failure to state an

H R S § 7 0 7

- 7 3 2 ( 1 ) ( b ) ( 1 9 9 3 ) p r o v i d e d t h a t a p e r s o n c o m m i t s t h e 5

o f f e n s e o f s e x u a l a s s a u l t i n t h e t h i r d d e g r e e i f : “ ( b ) T h e p e r s o n k n o w i n g l y

s u b j e c t s t o s e x u a l c o n t a c t a n o t h e r p e r s o n w h o i s l e s s t h a n f o u r t e e n y e a r o l d

o r c a u s e s s u c h a p e r s o n t o h a v e s e x u a l c o n t a c t w i t h t h e p e r s o n [

. ] ”

A p e r s o n v i o l a t e s H R S § 7 0 7

- 7 3 2 ( 1 ) ( b ) ( 1 9 9 3 ) a n d H R S § 7 0 7

- 7 3 3

. 5 6

( S u p p

. 1 9 9 7 ) i f t h e p e r s o n e n g a g e s i n “ s e x u a l c o n t a c t ” w i t h a m i n o r u n d e r t h e

a g e o f f o u r t e e n

.

“ S e x u a l c o n t a c t

, ” a s d e f i n e d i n H R S § 7 0 7

- 7 0 0 ( 1 9 9 3 )

, “ m e a n s a n y

t o u c h i n g o f t h e s e x u a l o r o t h e r i n t i m a t e p a r t s o f a p e r s o n n o t m a r r i e d t o t h e

a c t o r

. . . . ”



## 6* * * N O T F O R P U B L I C A T I O N I N W E S T ’ S H A W A I # I R E P O R T S A N D P A C I F I C R E P O R T E R * * *



## offense, and a conviction based upon it cannot be sustained.”

Id. Because we held in Arceo that an essential element of the

offense of sexual assault of a minor less than fourteen years old

was that the defendant “[be] aware that the Minor was not married

to him,” and Rita’s continuous sexual assault of a minor charge

failed to state that essential element, the charge was fatally

defective under Jendrusch. 7



## Additionally, it was clear at the time Rita was charged

that an indictment failing to state a mens rea was fatally

defective. Accordingly, Rita has also alleged facts, which if

proven, raise a colorable claim that his trial and appellate

counsel were ineffective for failing to challenge the sufficiency

of the indictment on this basis. 8



## In Jendrusch, we stated that an essential element of an

offense under the relevant criminal provision was “an intent or a

reckless disregard,” i.e., the requisite state of mind. Id. at

I t i s t r u e t h a t a m i n o r u n d e r t h e a g e o f f o u r t e e n y e a r s c a n n o t 7

m a r r y i n t h i s s t a t e

. H R S § 5 7 2

- 1 ( 2 ) ( S u p p

. 1 9 9 7 )

. H o w e v e r , H R S § 5 7 2

- 3

( S u p p

. 1 9 9 4 ) a l s o p r o v i d e d t h a t “ [ m ] a r r i a g e s b e t w e e n a m a n a n d a w o m a n l e g a l

i n t h e c o u n t r y w h e r e c o n t r a c t e d s h a l l b e l e g a l i n t h e c o u r t s o f t h i s s t a t e

. ”

T h e r e f o r e , i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t a m i n o r u n d e r t h e a g e o f f o u r t e e n c o u l d b e

l e g a l l y m a r r i e d

.

W h i l e R i t a d i d n o t a r g u e o n c e r t i o r a r i t h a t c o u n s e l w e r e 8

i n e f f e c t i v e f o r f a i l i n g t o c h a l l e n g e t h e s u f f i c i e n c y o f h i s i n d i c t m e n t f o r

o m i t t i n g t h e r e q u i s i t e m e n s r e a , t h i s c o u r t m a y r e c o g n i z e p l a i n e r r o r n o t

p r e s e n t e d p u r s u a n t t o H a w a i # i R u l e s o f A p p e l l a t e P r o c e d u r e ( H R A P ) R u l e

4 0

. 1 ( d ) ( 1 ) w h e n t h e e r r o r a f f e c t s s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s

. S t a t e v

. M i l l e r , 1 2 2

H a w a i # i 9 2

, 1 0 0

, 2 2 3 P

. 3 d 1 5 7

, 1 6 5 ( 2 0 1 0 )

.

H e r e , b e c a u s e t h e H a w a i # i C o n s t i t u t i o n a n d o u r c a s e l a w r e q u i r e d

a t t h e t i m e t h a t R i t a w a s c h a r g e d t h a t t h e r e q u i s i t e m e n s r e a b e a l l e g e d i n a n

i n d i c t m e n t

, t h e I C A ’ s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t c o u n s e l w e r e n o t i n e f f e c t i v e f o r f a i l i n g

t o c h a l l e n g e t h e s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e i n d i c t m e n t a f f e c t e d R i t a ’ s s u b s t a n t i a l

r i g h t s , a n d m a y t h e r e f o r e b e r e v i e w e d f o r p l a i n e r r o r

.



## 7* * * N O T F O R P U B L I C A T I O N I N W E S T ’ S H A W A I # I R E P O R T S A N D P A C I F I C R E P O R T E R * * *



## 281, 567 P.2d at 1244. Even if we later stated in State v.

Nesmith that the mens rea is not an “element of an offense,” we

nevertheless concluded that state of mind requirements needed to

be charged in a complaint “to alert the defendants of precisely

what they needed to defend against to avoid a conviction.” 127

Hawai # i 48, 56, 276 P.3d 617, 625 (2012) (citing State v. Elliot,

77 Hawai # i 309, 311-12, 884 P.2d 372, 374-75 (1994)).

We conclude that Rita’s continuous sexual assault

charge, which omitted the state of mind requirement, may not have

alerted Rita to what he needed to defend against to avoid a

conviction. Pursuant to HRS § 702-204 (1993), a person would

need to “intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly” engage in three

or more acts of sexual penetration or sexual contact with a minor

while the minor is under the age of fourteen years to violate HRS

§ 707-733.5 (Supp. 1997).

That language is missing from Rita’s indictment.

Additionally, there is no evidence in the record to clearly

demonstrate that Rita or Rita’s counsel had knowledge of the

requisite state of mind at trial. In opening statements and 9



## closing arguments at trial, the State and defense counsel

T h e I C A n o t e d t h a t b e c a u s e j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s s t a t e d t h a t o n e o f 9

t h e f o u r e l e m e n t s o f a c o n t i n u o u s s e x u a l a s s a u l t o f a m i n o r c h a r g e w a s “ [ t ] h a t

t h e D e f e n d a n t i n t e n t i o n a l l y o r k n o w i n g l y e n g a g e i n t h r e e o r m o r e a c t s o f

s e x u a l c o n t a c t w i t h [ t h e m i n o r ]

, ” t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e d t h a t R i t a w a s a w a r e o f

t h e r e q u i s i t e s t a t e o f m i n d

. H o w e v e r , b e i n g t o l d o f t h e r e q u i s i t e m e n s r e a

w h i l e j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n s a r e r e a d w o u l d n o t h a v e s u f f i c i e n t l y “ a l e r t [ e d ] [ R i t a ]

o f p r e c i s e l y w h a t [ h e ] n e e d e d t o d e f e n d a g a i n s t t o a v o i d a c o n v i c t i o n , ” a s h i s

c o u n s e l w o u l d h a v e a l r e a d y p r e s e n t e d c l o s i n g a r g u m e n t

. S e e E l l i o t

, 7 7 H a w a i # i

a t 3 1 1

- 1 2

, 8 8 4 P

. 2 d a t 3 7 4

- 7 5

.



## 8* * * N O T F O R P U B L I C A T I O N I N W E S T ’ S H A W A I # I R E P O R T S A N D P A C I F I C R E P O R T E R * * *



## disputed the credibility of the complaining witness and did not

discuss the requisite state of mind. Therefore, the due process

requirement under article I, section 14 of the Hawai # i

Constitution, i.e., that “the accused . . . be informed of the

nature and cause of the accusation,” does not appear to be

satisfied. State v. Israel, 78 Hawai # i 66, 71, 890 P.2d 303, 308

(1995) (“[I]n order for a defendant’s article I, section 14 right

to be deemed satisfied . . . the record must clearly demonstrate

the defendant’s actual knowledge.”).

Had Rita’s trial counsel challenged the sufficiency of

Rita’s indictment at trial, or had Rita’s appellate counsel

similarly challenged the sufficiency of the indictment on direct

appeal, his conviction would have been vacated. See Elliot, 77

Hawai # i at 312-13, 884 P.2d at 375-76. Therefore, Rita has

identified a specific error or omission by counsel that “resulted

in the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially

meritorious defense.” Maddox v. State, 141 Hawai # i 196, 202, 407

P.3d 152, 158 (2017). 1 0



## Because Rita has presented facts that, if true, assert

a colorable claim that his trial and/or appellate counsel was

W e r e s p e c t f u l l y d i s a g r e e w i t h t h e I C A t h a t c o u n s e l ’ s a l l e g e d 1 0

f a i l u r e t o c h a l l e n g e t h e d e f i c i e n c y o f t h e i n d i c t m e n t d i d n o t r e s u l t i n t h e

w i t h d r a w a l o r s u b s t a n t i a l i m p a i r m e n t o f a p o t e n t i a l l y m e r i t o r i o u s d e f e n s e

b e c a u s e t h e S t a t e “ w o u l d h a v e b e e n a b l e t o r e

- f i l e R i t a ’ s i n d i c t m e n t

. ” H e r e ,

R i t a h a s a l l e g e d t h a t c o u n s e l f a i l e d t o a s s e r t h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o b e

i n f o r m e d o f t h e n a t u r e a n d c a u s e o f t h e a c c u s a t i o n a g a i n s t h i m

. S e e I s r a e l

,
7 8 H a w a i # i a t 7 1

, 8 9 0 P

. 2 d a t 3 0 8

. “ A n a c c u s e d ’ s p o t e n t i a l l y m e r i t o r i o u s

d e f e n s e s i n c l u d e t h e a s s e r t i o n o f h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s

. ” B r i o n e s v

.

S t a t e , 7 4 H a w

. 4 4 2

, 4 6 2

, 8 4 8 P

. 2 d 9 6 6

, 9 7 6 ( 1 9 9 3 )

.



## 9* * * N O T F O R P U B L I C A T I O N I N W E S T ’ S H A W A I # I R E P O R T S A N D P A C I F I C R E P O R T E R * * *



## ineffective, he is entitled to a HRPP Rule 40 evidentiary hearing

on grounds A and B of his Supplemental Claims Petition. 1 1



## Accordingly, we vacate the ICA’s March 20, 2018

Judgment on Appeal and remand to the circuit court to hold a HRPP

Rule 40 evidentiary hearing on Rita’s claim that counsel were

ineffective for failing to challenge the sufficiency of his

indictment.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, November 8, 2018.

Emmanuel G. Guerrero
for petitioner/petitionerappellant

Tracy Murakami

for respondent/respondent

appellee /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

B e c a u s e R i t a f i l e d h i s f i r s t H R P P R u l e 4 0 p e t i t i o n p r o s e , h i s 1 1

c l a i m t h a t h e w a s u n a w a r e t h a t h i s i n d i c t m e n t w a s f a t a l l y d e f e c t i v e a t t h a t

t i m e , s u g g e s t s t h a t R i t a d i d n o t h a v e a n y o p p o r t u n i t y t o r a i s e t h i s i s s u e

p r e v i o u s l y

. T h i s f u r t h e r i n d i c a t e s t h a t R i t a d i d n o t w a i v e t h i s c l a i m

. S e e

D e L a G a r z a v

. S t a t e , 1 2 9 H a w a i # i 4 2 9

, 4 4 3

, 3 0 2 P

. 3 d 6 9 7

, 7 1 1 ( 2 0 1 3 ) ; H R P P

R u l e 4 0 ( a ) ( 3 )

.



## 10