* * * 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-16-0000429

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

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

vs.
ANTHONY K. CHATMAN, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-16-0000429; FC-CR. NO. 02-1-0011; CR. NO. 02-1-2353)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Wilson, JJ., and Circuit Judge Chang, in place of Pollack, J., recused) Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Anthony K. Chatman
(Chatman) seeks review of the Intermediate Court of Appeals’
(ICA) Judgment on Appeal, which affirmed the Circuit Court of the
First Circuit’s (circuit court) order denying Chatman’s motion
for correction of the record and motion for disqualification. 1


## We affirm the ICA’s Judgment with respect to Chatman’s motion for

W e c o n s t r u e t h e s e m o t i o n s a s H a w a i # i R u l e s o f P e n a l P r o c e d u r e ( H R P P ) 1
R u l e 4 0 p e t i t i o n s f o r p o s t

- c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f

. 

## Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-16-0000429 22-FEB-2019 08:22 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 * * *



## disqualification, but we vacate the Judgment with respect to
Chatman’s motion for correction, vacate the circuit court’s order
denying his motion for correction, and remand to the circuit
court for a HRPP Rule 40 evidentiary hearing on the motion for

correction.

On April 25, 2002, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee State

of Hawai # i (the State) filed a complaint charging Chatman with
attempted murder in the second degree when he,

b e i n g t h e p a r e n t o r g u a r d i a n o r a n y o t h e r p e r s o n h a v i n g l e g a l o r p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y o f [ M i n o r ] , a p e r s o n l e s s t h a n 1 8 y e a r s o f a g e , d i d i n t e n t i o n a l l y e n g a g e i n c o n d u c t w h i c h i s a
s u b s t a n t i a l s t e p i n a c o u r s e o f c o n d u c t i n t e n d e d o r k n o w n t o
c a u s e t h e d e a t h o f [ M i n o r ] , 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 A t t e m p t e d M u r d e r i n t h e S e c o n d D e g r e e


## in violation of Hawai # i Revised Statutes (HRS) §§ 705-500 (1993),
707-701.5 (1993), and 707-656 (Supp. 1996). A jury trial
commenced on May 29, 2003. 2



## On June 17, 2003, Dr. Victoria Schneider
(Dr. Schneider), a pediatrician, was called by the State to
testify as an expert on child abuse. After describing the
injuries that the Minor suffered, Dr. Schneider asked if she
could share a slide show presentation on shaken baby syndrome
with the jury to explain how shaking could have caused the
Minor’s injuries. Defense Counsel objected. After examining the
slides and concluding that they would not be misleading, the

T h e H o n o r a b l e K a r e n S

. S

. A h n p r e s i d e d o v e r t h e t r i a l a n d t h e H R P P 2
R u l e 4 0 p r o c e e d i n g s . 

## 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 * * *



## circuit court allowed Dr. Schneider to testify in conjunction
with the slide presentation, and asked her to return the
following morning on June 18, 2003 to begin her presentation.
The court then adjourned for the day.

The June 18, 2003 trial transcript in the Record on
Appeal does not contain Dr. Schneider’s testimony on the slide
show presentation. Instead, the first page of the transcript 3


## begins with Defense Counsel’s objection to Dr. Schneider’s
testimony. The trial transcript indicates Defense Counsel stated
that Dr. Schneider “was rambling on and on, and it looked like a
lecture [rather] than testimony in court.” Defense Counsel
therefore argued that “[Dr. Schneider’s] rambling narrative had

T h i s o m i s s i o n i n t h e t r i a l t r a n s c r i p t c o n t r a s t s w i t h t h e H A J I S c a s e 3

s u m m a r y i n t h e R e c o r d o n A p p e a l , w h i c h n o t e s t h a t o n J u n e 1 8 , 2 0 1 3 , t h e f o l l o w i n g o c c u r r e d :

9 : 0 4 A

. M

. C A S E C A L L E D I N P R E S E N C E O F C O U N S E L , D P A / D

. O Y A S A T O , C A / C

. K A N A I A N D D E F T O N L Y R E : C O U R T ’ S I N Q U I R Y O F S T A T E ’ S O F F E R O F P R O O F A S T O W H A T D R

. S C H N E I D E R ’ S O P I N I O N W I L L B E

. C O U R T N O T E D I T W A S N O T A W A R E D O C T O R W A S A L S O T H E T R E A T I N G P H Y S I C I A N

.

C O U R T ’ S R E C O R D M A D E

. D O C T O R W I L L B E P R O H I B I T E D F R O M E X P R E S S I N G A N O P I N I O N A S T O T H E C R E D I B I L I T Y O F T H E M O T H E R O R W H O M A Y H A V E C A U S E D I N J U R I E S

. 9 : 2 1 A

. M

. J U R Y P R E S E N T ; C A S E C A L L E D ; A P P E A R A N C E S N O T E D

. 9 : 2 2

- 1 0 : 3 1 A

. M

. F U R T H E R T E S T I M O N Y O F D R

. S C H N E I D E R

. 9 : 2 3

- 9 : 3 2 A

. M

. [ S H A K E N B A B Y S Y N D R O M E ] S L I D E S H O W P R E S E N T A T I O N P R E P A R E D B Y D R

. S C H N E I D E R

. 1 0 : 3 1 A

. M

. R E C E S S

. 1 0 : 4 9 A

. M

. R E C O N V E N E D W / C O U N S E L & D E F T O N L Y R E : D E F T ’ S O B J E C T I O N T O W I T N E S S T E S T I F Y I N G A S T O T H E “ H I S T O R Y ” P R O V I D E D B Y M O T H E R A N D D E F T ’ S F U R T H E R O B J E C T I O N T O T H E W I T N E S S “ R A M B L I N G N A R R A T I V E ” D U R I N G T H E S L I D E S H O W P R E S E N T A T I O N

. D E F E N D A N T ’ S O R A L M O T I O N F O R J U D G M E N T O F A C Q U I T T A L

- D E N I E D

. 1 0 : 5 5 A

. M

. J U R Y P R E S E N T

.



## 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 * * *



## an undue prejudicial impact on the Defense. And for that reason,
I would request a mistrial –- in this area or in combination with

other areas.” The circuit court denied Chatman’s motion for
mistrial, but stated “your record is preserved.” At that point,
Defense Counsel began his cross-examination of Dr. Schneider.

On June 30, 2003, the jury found Chatman guilty of
attempted murder in the second degree. Chatman appealed his

conviction and sentence to this court. We denied Chatman’s
ineffective assistance of counsel claims, without prejudice to
filing a HRPP Rule 40 petition on those claims in the future, and
we affirmed his attempted murder in the second degree conviction.
State v. Chatman, No. 26763, 2006 WL 2236740 (Haw. Aug. 3, 2006)
(mem.). Chatman filed his first HRPP Rule 40 petition for postconviction relief in 2008. Therein, Chatman alleged that trial
counsel was ineffective for failing to secure the presence or
testimony of a witness at trial. The circuit court denied
Chatman’s petition without a hearing. The ICA affirmed. Chatman
v. State, No. 29504, 2010 WL 1056079 (App. Mar. 24, 2010) (SDO).
Chatman did not apply for a writ of certiorari at that time.

In 2015, Chatman filed two motions in the circuit court

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 * * *



## which we construe as additional HRPP Rule 40 petitions. On 4


## May 18, 2015, Chatman filed a Motion for Correction or
Modification of the Record (Motion for Correction), and on
September 10, 2015, Chatman filed a Motion for Disqualification.
On April 28, 2016, the circuit court denied both motions without
holding a hearing. The ICA affirmed. Chatman filed an
application for writ of certiorari.

We vacate in part the ICA’s Judgment on Appeal with
respect to Chatman’s Motion for Correction. Chatman argued in

his Motion for Correction that the record contained no evidence
of Dr. Schneider’s testimony on the slide show presentation.

Chatman further stated:

[ A ] s a r e s u l t o f t h e m i s s i n g t r a n s c r i p t , h i s d u e p r o c e s s
r i g h t t o a r e c o r d o n a p p e a l ; w h i c h i n c l u d e s a c o m p l e t e t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s a t t r i a l , w i l l c o n t i n u e t o b e p r e j u d i c e d b y h i s i n a b i l i t y t o m a k e s u b s t a n t i v e c l a i m s , r e l a t i n g t o D r . S c h n e i d e r ’ s P o w e r p o i n t p r e s e n t a t i o n , i n a n y f u t u r e p o s t

- c o n v i c t i o n o r h a b e a s p r o c e e d i n g s . 

## In his application for writ of certiorari, Chatman contends that
he “met his burden of proving the existence of ‘extraordinary
circumstances’ pursuant to H.R.P.P., Rule 40 (a)(3)” because he
was unaware of the missing part of Dr. Schneider’s June 18, 2003
testimony until approximately two years after he filed his first

B e c a u s e H R P P R u l e 4 0 ( a ) s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o v i d e s t h a t “ [ t ] h e p o s t

4

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 , ” w e a g r e e w i t h t h e I C A t h a t C h a t m a n ’ s M o t i o n f o r C o r r e c t i o n a n d M o t i o n f o r D i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n s h o u l d b e
c o n s t r u e d a s p e t i t i o n s f o r p o s t

- c o n v i c t i o n r e l i e f p u r s u a n t t o H R P P R u l e 4 0

. ( E m p h a s i s a d d e d

. )


## 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 * * *



## HRPP Rule 40 Petition.

Because Chatman did not knowingly or understandingly
fail to raise this issue in a prior proceeding, and because he
has asserted a colorable claim that this missing trial transcript
prejudiced his appeal, we conclude that Chatman is entitled to an
evidentiary hearing pursuant to HRPP Rule 40(f) on his Motion for

Correction. 5

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 : 5

( 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 . . . .

. . . . ( 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 ( c o n t i n u e d

. . . )


## 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 * * *


## It is true that Chatman did not attempt to correct the
record on direct appeal or in his first HRPP Rule 40 petition.
HRPP Rule 40(a)(3) provides that “Rule 40 proceedings shall not
be available and relief thereunder shall not be granted where the
issues sought to be raised have been previously ruled upon or
were waived.” There is also “a rebuttable presumption that a
failure to appeal a ruling or to raise an issue is a knowing and
understanding failure.” HRPP Rule 40(a)(3).

But here, Chatman presents facts sufficient to rebut
the presumption that he “knowingly and understandably” failed to
raise the claim previously. Chatman notes that he was only made
aware of the missing portion of the June 18, 2003, trial
transcript when his appellate attorney released the transcripts
of the proceedings to him in 2010, after his first HRPP Rule 40
petition was denied without a hearing.

Chatman could not have raised any claim that the trial
transcript was incomplete, nor could he have filed a motion for

correction of the record under Hawai # i Rules of Appellate

(

. . . c o n t i n u e d ) 5
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
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 . 

## 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 * * *



## Procedure (HRAP) Rule 10(e), until he saw the trial transcripts. 6


## Therefore, on this record, Chatman has presented facts sufficient
to rebut the presumption that he knowingly and understandably
waived the right to correct the record. See De La Garza v.
State, 129 Hawai # i 429, 443, 302 P.3d 697, 711 (2013)
(determining that because the HRPP Rule 40 petitioner did not
have any opportunity to raise the issue of the Hawai # i Paroling
Authority’s nondisclosure of evidence in any other proceeding
actually conducted, he “presented facts sufficient to rebut the
presumption that he knowingly and understandingly waived the
issue”).
Furthermore, we conclude that Chatman has asserted a colorable claim that Dr. Schneider’s missing trial testimony may
have specifically prejudiced his appeal. On the issue of
incomplete trial records, this court has previously stated that
“[t]he general rule is that where the transcripts of a
defendant’s trial are incomplete because they omit portions of

H R A P R u l e 1 0 ( e ) ( 2 0 1 2 ) p r o v i d e s i n r e l e v a n t p a r t : 6

( e ) C o r r e c t i o n o r m o d i f i c a t i o n o f t h e r e c o r d

.

. . . .

( 2 ) I f a n y t h i n g m a t e r i a l t o a n y p a r t y i s o m i t t e d f r o m t h e r e c o r d b y e r r o r o r a c c i d e n t o r i s m i s s t a t e d t h e r e i n , c o r r e c t i o n s o r
m o d i f i c a t i o n s m a y b e a s f o l l o w s :

( A ) b y t h e s t i p u l a t i o n o f t h e p a r t i e s ; o r ( B ) b y t h e c o u r t o r a g e n c y a p p e a l e d f r o m , e i t h e r b e f o r e o r a f t e r t h e r e c o r d i s t r a n s m i t t e d ; o r ( C ) b y d i r e c t i o n o f t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t b e f o r e w h i c h t h e
c a s e i s p e n d i n g , o n p r o p e r s u g g e s t i o n o r i t s o w n i n i t i a t i v e . 

## 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 * * *



## the trial proceedings, such omissions do not mandate reversal
unless they specifically prejudice the defendant’s appeal.”
State v. Kiese, 126 Hawai # i 494, 508, 273 P.3d 1180, 1194 (2012).

Here, while Defense Counsel made an oral motion for a
mistrial following Dr. Schneider’s testimony and the circuit
court assured Chatman that “your record is preserved,” the
testimony which was objected to was not preserved. This omission
may have specifically prejudiced Chatman’s appeal. See id. As
such, Chatman’s Motion for Correction alleges facts that if
proven would entitle Chatman to relief, i.e., correction or
modification of the record. The circuit court erred in denying
Chatman’s Motion for Correction without a hearing. The ICA
similarly erred in affirming the circuit court’s order on this

claim.
However, the ICA did not err in affirming the circuit
court’s order denying Chatman’s Motion for Disqualification.
Because the circuit court judge in this case has retired, the
judge will not preside over any further proceedings involving
Chatman. Accordingly, Chatman’s Motion for Disqualification is
moot. See State v. Fukusaku, 85 Hawai # i 462, 474-75, 946 P.2d
32, 44-45 (1997) (“[T]he mootness doctrine is properly invoked
where events have so affected relations between the parties that
the two conditions for justiciability relevant on appeal—adverse

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 * * *



## interest and effective remedy—have been compromised.” (emphasis
added)). Accordingly, we vacate in part the ICA’s May 14, 2018
Judgment on Appeal and vacate in part the circuit court’s “Order
Denying Motion for Correction or Modification of the Record Filed
May 18, 2015 and Motion for Disqualification Filed September 10,

2015.” We remand the case to the circuit court for a HRPP Rule
40 evidentiary hearing on Chatman’s Motion for Correction, in
which the circuit court should determine, pursuant to HRAP Rule
10(e), whether correction or modification of the record is
appropriate. We affirm in part the ICA’s Judgment on Appeal
affirming the circuit court’s order denying Chatman’s Motion for
Disqualification.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, February 22, 2019.
Anthony K. Chatman, petitioner/defendant-appellant pro se Stephen K. Tsushima for respondent State of Hawai # i /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Michael D. Wilson /s/ Gary W.B. Chang

10