NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-20-0000633

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

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

CHRISTIAN CONCEPCION, also known as

Christian Ernie Concepcion, Defendant-Appellee,

and

SCOTTS BAIL BONDS L.L.C., dba Aloha Bail Bonds,

Real Party in Interest-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

(CASE NO. 1CPC-20-0000743)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

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

Appellant Scott's Bail Bonds, L.L.C., dba Aloha Bail

Bonds (SBB), appeals from the September 22, 2020 "Findings of

Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Denying Scott's Bail Bonds'

Motion to Set Aside Bond Forfeiture," entered by the Circuit

Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court).1/

On appeal, SBB contends that the Circuit Court

(1) erred by denying SBB's September 10, 2020 "Motion to Set

Aside Bond Forfeiture" (Motion) on the basis that the court

lacked jurisdiction over the Motion, and (2) should have

considered reasons for good cause as to why execution of the

July 14, 2020 "Judgment and Order of Forfeiture of Bail Bond"

(Forfeiture Judgment) should not have issued. 

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs

submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to

1/ The Honorable Shirley M. Kawamura presided.

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-20-0000633

28-JUN-2022

07:48 AM

Dkt. 31 SO
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

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

resolve SBB's contentions as follows and affirm:

The procedure for forfeiture of bail bonds is set out

in Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 804-51 (2014), which provides

in relevant part:

Whenever the court, in any criminal cause, forfeits any bond

or recognizance given in a criminal cause, the court shall

immediately enter up judgment in favor of the State and

against the principal or principals and surety or sureties

on the bond, jointly and severally, for the full amount of

the penalty thereof, and shall cause execution to issue

thereon immediately after the expiration of thirty days from

the date that notice is given via personal service or

certified mail, return receipt requested, to the surety or

sureties on the bond, of the entry of the judgment in favor

of the State, unless before the expiration of thirty days

from the date that notice is given to the surety or sureties

on the bond of the entry of the judgment in favor of the

State, a motion or application of the principal or

principals, surety or sureties, or any of them, showing good

cause why execution should not issue upon the judgment, is

filed with the court. If the motion or application, after a

hearing held thereon, is sustained, the court shall vacate

the judgment of forfeiture and, if the principal surrenders

or is surrendered pursuant to section 804-14 or section

804-41, return the bond or recognizance to the principal or

surety, whoever shall have given it, less the amount of any

cost, as established at the hearing, incurred by the State

as a result of the nonappearance of the principal or other

event on the basis of which the court forfeited the bond or

recognizance. If the motion or application, after a hearing

held thereon, is overruled, execution shall forthwith issue

and shall not be stayed unless the order overruling the

motion or application is appealed from as in the case of a

final judgment.

(Emphasis added.) 

 As the Supreme Court of Hawai#i has "reiterate[d],

once a bond is forfeited pursuant to HRS § 804-51, a surety has

thirty days from the time it receives notice of forfeiture to set

aside the forfeiture judgment[.]" State v. Vaimili, 131 Hawai#i

9, 15, 313 P.3d 698, 704 (2013). "HRS § 804-51 permits the

filing neither of a second motion . . . nor any motion after the

closing of the thirty-day window." State v. Ranger Ins. Co., 83

Hawai#i 118, 124 n.5, 925 P.2d 288, 294 n.5 (1996) ("Without

addressing its merits, the motion to vacate [forfeiture judgment]

did 'not provide a legal basis for the relief requested,' as the

circuit court ruled, because it was not filed within the time

limit imposed by HRS § 804-51, and the circuit court was

therefore without power to consider it.")

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

Here, SBB acknowledges that it received notice of the

Forfeiture Judgment on August 7, 2020, and does not dispute that

it electronically filed the Motion on September 10, 2020, more

than thirty days after receiving notice. But SBB argues that the

Motion should nonetheless be deemed timely because counsel

"tendered" the Motion to the Circuit Court on September 3, 2020 —

within the thirty-day period — by emailing a draft of the Motion

to the court chambers to obtain a hearing date. In this regard,

the Circuit Court made the following findings of fact, which SBB

does not expressly challenge:2/

7. On September 3, 2020 at 5:56 p.m., [SBB's

counsel] emailed to the Court via the 12th Division email

address a draft copy of the present Motion requesting that

the Court calendar the Motion.

8. On September 4, 2020 at 10:31 a.m., the 12th

Division replied to [SBB's counsel], setting the hearing on

the Motion for September 21, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. and

requesting that he file the Motion[] accordingly.[3/]

9. On September 10, 2020, at 11:55 a.m. [SBB's

counsel] filed the Motion to Set Aside Bond Forfeiture.

(Footnote added.)

While SBB claims it "tendered" the Motion within the

required thirty-day period when it emailed a copy to the Circuit

Court and requested a hearing date, such a tendering does not

satisfy HRS § 804-51's requirement that the Motion be filed

within the thirty-day window. 

The Hawai#i Electronic Filing and Service Rules (HEFSR)

require every attorney representing a party to a case maintained

in the Judiciary Information Management System (JIMS) to

(1) register as a Judiciary Electronic Filing System (JEFS) user,

and (2) electronically file each document as an Adobe Portable

Document Format (PDF) document through JEFS. HEFSR Rules 1, 2.2,

4.1(a). "Electronic filing means (1) the submission of documents

2/ Unchallenged factual findings are deemed binding on appeal. Okada

Trucking Co. v. Bd. of Water Supply, 97 Hawai#i 450, 459, 40 P.3d 73, 82

(2002).

3/ SBB claims on appeal that it "received" the Circuit Court's

September 4, 2020 email on September 10, 2020, but it does not provide any

discernible record citation to support this assertion, it did not raise this

issue in its Motion, and no transcript of the hearing on the Motion has been

included in the record. 

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

by authorized JEFS Users for docketing and storage in JIMS and

(2) the conversion and/or transmission of documents by JIMS Users

directly into JIMS." HEFSR Rule 1 (bold typeface omitted). "The

electronic filing of a document is deemed complete for all

purposes under any of the Hawai#i Rules of Court when a Notice of

Electronic Filing is generated." HEFSR Rule 3.1. Except for

conventionally filed documents, "a document filed through JEFS or

JIMS for docketing and storage in JIMS is deemed filed at the

date and time stated on the Notice of Electronic Filing." HEFSR

Rule 3.3. By contrast, the HEFSR provide that "[t]he clerk shall

electronically file any paper document conventionally filed[,]"

and that "[t]he receipt date and time reflected on the

conventionally filed document and subsequently filed in JIMS

shall be deemed the filing date. . . ." HEFSR Rule 2.5. 

Therefore, even assuming SBB sent a copy of its unfiled motion to

the Circuit Court via email, as counsel was required to

electronically file documents on behalf of SBB and could not

conventionally file the Motion, the September 10, 2020 electronic

filing date governs.4/ See State v. Crisp, CAAP-18-0000433, 2019

WL 1715771, at *2 (Haw. App. Apr. 17, 2019). 

Accordingly, the Circuit Court correctly ruled it had

no jurisdiction to consider SBB's Motion. See Ranger Ins. Co.,

83 Hawai#i at 124 n.5, 925 P.2d at 294 n.5. Thus, we also reject

SBB's argument that the circuit court should have considered

reasons for good cause as to why execution of Forfeiture Judgment

should not have issued.5/ Id. 

4/ In urging the court to deem the Motion timely filed, SBB cites In

re Doe, 101 Hawai#i 220, 65 P.3d 167 (2003). That case is distinguishable

inasmuch as it is a family court case governed by the Hawai#i Family Court

Rules and to which the HEFSR did not apply. SBB also appears to argue that

the court should apply HEFSR Rule 10 to excuse counsel's late filing. But

HEFSR Rule 10, which pertains to technical failures of JEFS or JIMS, does not

apply here because SBB does not contend (or point to any record support) that

a technical failure of JEFS or JIMS prevented it from timely filing the

Motion. 

5/ While not listed in its points of error, SBB appears to contend

that because the defendant was "brought into custody within three days of

missing Court . . . [i]t should be argued that the bail forfeiture should have

been set aside sua sponte[.]" HRS § 804-51 "provides that once the court

enters a judgment of forfeiture a surety is entitled to relief only by filing

a motion within thirty days demonstrating good cause for setting the judgment

of forfeiture aside[.]" Vaimili, 131 Hawai#i at 11, 313 P.3d at 700 (emphasis

added). As the Circuit Court here entered the Forfeiture Judgment, SBB was

required to seek relief under HRS § 804-51.

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

For the foregoing reasons, the Circuit Court's

September 22, 2020 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and

Order Denying Scott's Bail Bonds' Motion to Set Aside Bond

Forfeiture is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 28, 2022.

On the briefs:

Anthony Fujii,

for Real Party in InterestAppellant.

Loren J. Thomas,

Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,

City & County of Honolulu,

for Plaintiff-Appellee.

/s/ Katherine G. Leonard

Presiding Judge

/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka

Associate Judge

/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth

Associate Judge

5