NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-19-0000381 and NO. CAAP-19-0000382

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

CAAP-19-0000381

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

PHILIP BIKLE, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT

PUNA DIVISION

(Case No. 3DTC-16-005744)

and

CAAP-19-0000382

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

PHILIP BIKLE, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT

PUNA DIVISION

(Case No. 3DTI-16-016896)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

(By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Hiraoka and Wadsworth, JJ.)

Self-represented Defendant-Appellant Philip Bikle

appeals from: (1) the "Judgment After Trial De Novo & Notice of

Entry of Judgment" entered by the District Court of the Third

Circuit, Puna Division, on April 12, 2019, in case 3DTI-16-016896

(Traffic Infraction Case); and (2) the "Judgment and Notice of

Entry of Judgment" entered by the District Court of the Third

Circuit, Puna Division, on April 12, 2019, in case 3DTC-16-005744

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-19-0000381

03-JUN-2022

08:12 AM

Dkt. 68 SO
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(Traffic Crime Case).1 For the reasons explained below, we

affirm the judgments in both cases.

On November 11, 2016, a Hawai#i County Police

Department (HCPD) police officer stopped a vehicle that did not

have a license plate, safety check sticker, or registration or

weight tax sticker. Bikle was the driver. He was unable to

produce a driver's license, vehicle registration, or proof of

motor vehicle insurance.

The police officer issued two citations to Bikle:

(1) Notice of Traffic Infraction(s) no. 3DTI-16-016896

(Infraction Citation) for no vehicle license plate in violation

of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 249-7, delinquent vehicle tax

in violation of HRS § 249-2, no certificate of inspection in

violation of HRS § 286-25, and no registration in vehicle in

violation of HRS § 286-47(3); and (2) Citation for Traffic Crimes

no. 3DTC-16-005744 (Criminal Citation), for driving motor vehicle

without valid driver's license in violation of HRS § 286-102 and

no motor vehicle insurance policy in violation of HRS § 431:10C104.

Bikle contested both citations. In the Traffic

Infraction Case, the district court entered a judgment for the

State and against Bikle on all counts of the Infraction Citation

on December 29, 2016. Bikle requested a trial de novo under

Rule 19(a) of the Hawai#i Civil Traffic Rules (HCTR). In the

Traffic Crime Case, Bikle was arraigned on January 4, 2018. Over

the next two-and-a-half years, the district court held multiple

hearings addressing legal and procedural challenges made by Bikle

in both cases.

A consolidated trial de novo for the Traffic Infraction

Case and trial for the Traffic Crime Case took place on March 1,

2019, and continued on April 12, 2019. On April 12, 2019, in the

Traffic Infraction Case, Bikle was found guilty of no vehicle

1 The Honorable Harry P. Freitas presided over the consolidated

trial.

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

license plate, delinquent vehicle tax, and no certificate of

inspection. The no registration in vehicle charge was dismissed. 

In the Traffic Crime Case, Bikle was found guilty of Driving

Motor Vehicle Without Valid Driver's License and No Motor Vehicle

Insurance Policy. These appeals followed.2

Bikle contends in both cases that he was not charged

within the statute of limitations and therefore the alleged

offenses were time-barred. The applicable statute for both cases

is HRS § 701-108 (2014). It provides, in relevant part:

Time limitations.

. . . .

(2) Except as otherwise provided in this section,

prosecutions for other offenses are subject to the following

periods of limitation:

. . . .

(f) A prosecution for a petty misdemeanor or a

violation other than a parking violation must be

commenced within one year after it is committed.

. . . .

(5) A prosecution is commenced either when an

indictment is found or a complaint filed, or when an arrest

warrant or other process is issued, provided that such

warrant or process is executed without unreasonable delay.

(bold italics added). Bikle contends that his prosecution in

both cases commenced when he was arraigned, which in both cases

was more than one year after his traffic infractions and crimes

took place.

2 Bikle's opening briefs in both appeals fail to comply with

Rule 28(b)(4) of the Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure. Nevertheless, to

promote access to justice the Hawai#i Supreme Court instructs that pleadings

prepared by self-represented litigants should be interpreted liberally, and

self-represented litigants should not automatically be foreclosed from

appellate review because they fail to comply with court rules. Erum v. Llego,

147 Hawai#i 368, 380-81, 465 P.3d 815, 827-28 (2020). We address Bikle's

points of error to the extent we can discern them.

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Traffic Infraction Case

HCTR Rule 6 provides:

An action is commenced by serving the notice of infraction

on the driver of a motor vehicle or by affixing the notice

conspicuously to the vehicle.

HCTR Rule 7 provides:

The officer or some other person authorized by the issuing

entity shall file the original of the notice of infraction

with, or transmit an electronic copy of the notice of

infraction to, the Traffic Violations Bureau or District

Court in the circuit where the alleged infraction occurred,

no later than ten (10) calendar days after the date the

notice is issued.

"Officer" is defined as "[p]olice or other person authorized by

law to issue a notice of infraction." HCTR Rule 3.

For purposes of HRS § 701-108, the Infraction Citation

was "other process" issued to Bikle. The prosecution of the

Traffic Infraction Case commenced when the HCPD officer served

the Infraction Citation on Bikle. Bikle's contention that the

statute of limitations barred his prosecution lacks merit. 

Bikle's related argument that the Infraction Citation was invalid

because the police officer who issued it was "not licensed as an

attorney, nor does he work from the prosecutor's office" lacks

merit.

Although not stated as a point of error, Bikle argues

that the Infraction Citation "could not possibly be construed as

conveying all of the elements of the offenses alleged and it

would be a violation of due process to allow such a vague

instrument to be used for 'informing' a defendant of the

allegations for which a defense must be prepared." HCTR Rule 9

provides, in relevant part:

The notice of infraction is sufficient if it contains either

a written description of or statutory designation for the

infraction.

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

The Infraction Citation contained the statutory

designation for each of Bikle's infractions. Bikle's due process

argument lacks merit.

Traffic Crime Case

The traffic crimes for which Bikle was charged were

petty misdemeanors or violations. Police officers are authorized

to issue citations for petty misdemeanors or violations. HRS

§ 803-6 (2014) provides, in relevant part:

(b) In any case in which it is lawful for a police

officer to arrest a person without a warrant for a

misdemeanor, petty misdemeanor or violation, the police

officer may, but need not, issue a citation in lieu of

[making an arrest] if the police officer finds and is

reasonably satisfied that the person:

(1) Will appear in court at the time designated;

(2) Has no outstanding arrest warrants which would

justify the person's detention or give

indication that the person might fail to appear

in court; and

(3) That the offense is of such nature that there

will be no further police contact on or about

the date in question, or in the immediate

future.

. . . .

(d) Where a citation has been issued in lieu of

[arrest], the officer who issues the summons or citation may

subscribe to the complaint:

. . . .

(2) By declaration in accordance with the rules of

court.

Bikle's Criminal Citation stated:

COMPLAINT: The undersigned officer, on behalf of Plaintiff

State of Hawai#i, declares under penalty of law that he/she

has probable cause to believe and does believe that on the

date, at the time, and under the conditions indicated, the

named defendant did commit the criminal offense(s) noted

below and that the same is true and correct to the best of

his/her knowledge and belief.

This form of declaration complies with Appendix B of the Rules of

the District Courts of the State of Hawai#i.

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

For purposes of HRS § 701-108, the Criminal Citation

was "other process" issued to Bikle. The prosecution of the

Traffic Crime Case commenced when the HCPD officer issued the

Criminal Citation to Bikle on November 11, 2016 (the date the

offenses were committed). Bikle's contention that the statute of

limitations barred his prosecution lacks merit.

Bikle raises five additional arguments in the Traffic

Crime Case:

1. "The [district court] Erred [sic] in

conducting and establishing a prima facie

case, and by not finding that, as a matter of

law, the prosecution had failed to comply

with the requirements of process for

initiating a criminal case that caused

harmful effects and injustice to [Bikle]."

The Traffic Crime Case was called for arraignment and

plea on December 15, 2016. Bikle stated he was challenging

jurisdiction and wanted a bill of particulars. The district

court referred Bikle to the Office of the Public Defender and

continued the proceeding. Bikle argues:

There were no valid charges against me and no proof of

service of a summons and Judge Freitas should not have

ordered me to appear after the December 15, 2016 hearing and

he should not have required that I file a written motion to

dismiss when the foundational pleadings for initiating a

case against me had not even been filed, and this was

pointed out to him on the record. This was a violation of

the right to due process.

(citation to the record omitted). As explained above, the

Traffic Crime Case was properly commenced when the HCPD officer

issued the Criminal Citation to Bikle. Bikle was orally charged

on January 4, 2018. The district court did not deprive Bikle of

his right to due process. 

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

2. "[The district court] erred by ordering

[Bikle] to a bench trial without conducting a

probable cause hearing to determine if the

warrantless seizure of [Bikle] by [HCPD]

Officer Clarence Davies was lawful and also

without conducting an arraignment hearing, or

obtaining the knowing waiver of said hearing

by [Bikle]."

Bikle argues, for the first time on appeal, that the

district court erred by failing to hold a probable cause hearing

to determine the validity of his warrantless seizure. "As a

general rule, if a party does not raise an argument at trial,

that argument will be deemed to have been waived on appeal; this

rule applies in both criminal and civil cases." State v. Moses,

102 Hawai#i 449, 456, 77 P.3d 940, 947 (2003) (citations

omitted). Bikle's opening brief does not identify when or how

this issue was raised to the district court. We decline to

address this point of error.

3. "[The district court] erred by failing to

acknowledge that only a licensed prosecutor

may initiate prosecution for a criminal case

and a police officer is not a prosecuting

officer. This is a due process violation."

As explained above, the Traffic Crime Case was properly

commenced when the HCPD officer issued the Criminal Citation to

Bikle. The district court did not deprive Bikle of his right to

due process.

4. "The totality of the actions by Judge Harry

Freitas present clear bias and prejudice that

prevented [Bikle] from having fair

proceedings and a fair trial."

Judge Freitas presided over the initially set

December 15, 2016 arraignment and plea hearing, and continued the

hearing to January 4, 2018. Bikle contends: "Judge Freitas

ignored me when I entered multiple objections to being charged

after the statute of limitations and he entered a plea for me."

7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

The January 4, 2018 transcript of proceedings shows

that after Bikle was arraigned by the deputy prosecuting attorney

in the Traffic Crime Case he refused to enter a plea, stating:

"You've already past the statute of limitations for when he's

allowed to arraign me." He also stated: "I would . . . like to

leave here today with a dismissal because, uh, prosecution failed

to initiate any charges. They're the only ones authorized in the

State of Hawaii to bring charges. . . . You guys –- you guys past

[sic] the statute of limitations." Judge Freitas responded:

Okay. Then at this time what I'll do is I'll note your

representation and the fact that you don't wanna enter a

plea as to the arraignment, so at this time the Court's

gonna enter your not guilty pleas as to the arraignment

. . . of the charges.

. . . .

I'm gonna set it for a trial, you can file whatever

you want, and then we'll just go from there.

The record does not support Bikle's argument that Judge Freitas

was biased or prejudiced. Bikle's point of error lacks merit.

5. "The totality of the actions by Judge Michael

Udovic present clear bias and prejudice that

prevented Defendant-Appellant from having

fair proceedings."

Judge Udovic presided over the March 30, 2017

evidentiary hearing on Bikle's motion to suppress evidence. 

Bikle contends:

[O]n March 2 [sic], 2017 [Judge Udovic] scheduled a trial

date even though . . . there were no written charges filed

and the Official Transcript for the arraignment day of

December 15, 2016 shows [the deputy prosecuting attorney]

failed to enter any oral charges. Judge Michael Udovic also

required Defendant-Appellant to file a motion to suppress

before any charges were ever filed. This is irregular

process and a complete violation of due process rights.

During the hearing on March 30, 2017, Judge Udovic

denied Bikle's motion to suppress. Bikle stated an intention to

take an interlocutory appeal. Judge Udovic then set a status

8
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

conference regarding the filing of an interlocutory appeal for

June 1, 2017. The record does not support Bikle's argument that

Judge Udovic was biased or prejudiced. Bikle's point of error

lacks merit.

For the foregoing reasons, the "Judgment After Trial De

Novo & Notice of Entry of Judgment" entered on April 12, 2019, in

the Traffic Infraction Case; and the "Judgment and Notice of

Entry of Judgment" entered on April 12, 2019, in the Traffic

Crime Case, are affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 3, 2022.

On the briefs:

/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza

Philip Bikle, Chief Judge

Self-represented 

Defendant-Appellant. /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka

Associate Judge 

Leneigha S. Downs,

Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth

County of Hawai#i, Associate Judge

for Plaintiff-Appellee.

9