NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER


CAAP-10-0000070
 

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
 

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I 

CHARLES ANTHONY STANLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v.


STATE OF HAWAI'I, Respondent-Appellee
 

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
 

(S.P.P. NO. 10-1-0034 (Cr. No. 04-1-0049))
 

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
 

(By: Nakamura, C.J., Foley and Reifurth, JJ.)
 

Petitioner-Appellant Charles Anthony Stanley (Stanley)
 

appeals from the "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order
 

Denying Petition for Post-Conviction Relief, Filed June 3, 2010" 


(Order) filed on September 9, 2010 in the Circuit Court of the
 

1
 First Circuit (circuit court).


 A jury convicted Stanley of Robbery in the Second
 

Degree, in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 708­

841(1)(a) (1993). The circuit court entered the Judgment of
 

Conviction and Sentence (Judgment) on February 24, 2005.
 

Stanley filed an appeal (No. 27144) from the Judgment,
 

contending that the circuit court erred by denying his two oral
 

motions for judgment of acquittal, allowing a juror to remain on
 

the jury, denying his Motion to Dismiss, and finding that he
 

1
 The Honorable Michael D. Wilson presided.
 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER 

qualified as a repeat offender. This court filed a Summary
 

Disposition Order on October 24, 2006, affirming the Judgment.
 

On October 13, 2005, Stanley filed a Petition for Post-


Conviction Relief (First Petition) in the circuit court in S.P.P.
 

No. 05-1-0066, pursuant to Rule 40 of the Hawaii Rules of Penal
 

Procedure (HRPP). Stanley stated four claims: (1) denial of
 

effective assistance of counsel because defense counsel did not
 

get evidence from the evidence room and other locations in
 

preparation for trial, (2) conviction obtained by use of evidence
 

gained pursuant to an unconstitutional search and seizure, (3)
 

conviction obtained by use of evidence obtained pursuant to an
 

unlawful arrest, and (4) conviction obtained by unconstitutional
 

failure of the prosecution to disclose to Stanley evidence
 

favorable to him. On February 3, 2006, the circuit court denied
 

the First Petition. Stanley did not appeal the denial of the
 

First Petition.
 

On May 29, 2007, Stanley filed a Petition to Vacate,
 

Set Aside, or Correct Judgment or to Release Petitioner from
 

Custody (Second Petition), pursuant to HRPP Rule 40, in the
 

circuit court in S.P.P. 07-1-0023. Stanley stated seven claims: 


(1) violation of his right to due process and fair trial by the
 

failure to introduce a black bag into evidence and to allow the
 

jury to inspect the black bag during deliberations; (2)
 

prosecutorial misconduct because the prosecutor (a) failed to
 

introduce the black bag into evidence and (b) raised his hands
 

into a fighting stance without holding the black bag during the
 

prosecutor's closing argument; (3) ineffective assistance of
 

trial counsel because counsel failed to get the black bag
 

admitted into evidence, obtain the store's video surveillance
 

tape for trial, subpoena Police Officer Leong (who viewed the
 

videotape) and Brandon Wong, prepare for trial, and file a timely
 

request for a new trial; (4) unconstitutional seizure of his body
 

when security officers grabbed him during the arrest, (5)
 

criminalization of his involuntary act of responding to the use
 

2
 
 

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

of force; (6) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel because
 

appellate counsel failed to raise the above issues on appeal; and
 

(7) unconstitutional selection of a jury that excluded African-


American jurors. On September 27, 2007, the circuit court denied
 

the Second Petition. Stanley appealed, and on April 21, 2009,
 

this court issued a Memorandum Opinion, affirming the denial of
 

the Second Petition. 


On June 3, 2010, Stanley filed a Petition for Post-


Conviction Relief (Third Petition) (S.P.P. 10-1-0034), pursuant
 

to HRPP Rule 40. Stanley claimed:
 

A.	 Ground one: THE JUDGMENT WAS OBTAINED AND SENTENCE
 

IMPOSED IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE III, § 1, HAWAII STATE


CONSTITUTION. U.S.C.A. 14.
 

Supporting FACTS . . .: THE JURY VERDICT IS CONTRARY


TO ACT 68, SESSION LAW OF 1998, A DEFECTIVE VERDICT AS


AMENDED TO "USE OF FORCE" consistent with ASSAULT [see


Addendum]
 

B.	 Ground two: THE SENTENCE IS ILLEGAL, FIRST CIRCUIT


COURT DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION, AS


MANDATED BY ART. III, § 1, Under HRS § 708-841(1)(a)
 

Supporting FACTS . . .: JUDGMENT REST ON "A FIGHTING


STANCE" under HRS § 708-841(1)(a) which is objectively


in opposition to Legislative expanded definition of


use of force for robbery [See Attached Pages]
 

C.	 Ground three: PETITIONER'S RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED UNDER
 

ARTICLE 1, § 5, OF THE HAWAII STATE CONSTITUTION TO


DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW.
 

Supporting FACTS . . .: A MANIFEST ERROR OCCURRED


DURING TRIAL WHICH EFFECTED PETITIONERS SUBSTANTIAL
 

RIGHTS. "See Separate memorandum "Complaint failed to


state Offense"
 

D.	 Ground four: JURISDICTION CANNOT BE WAIVED IN
 

COMPLAINT "STRUCTURAL DEFECTS REQUIRE AUTOMATIC


REVERSAL" UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT 6.
 

Supporting FACTS . . .: Complaint Failed to allege all


essential elements of offense as amended by


Legislature, which removed "Vague term uses force"


Fatal to complaint. see [Separate Memorandum


attached].
 

On June 22, 2010, Stanley filed a "Motion to Add to
 

Rule (H.R.P.P. 40 Petition) Ground Five HRPP 40(e)
 

'Jurisdictional Defect in Complaint, Judgments and Sentence'
 

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

Complaint Failed to Include HRS § 708-841(1)(b)," which added
 

Ground Five:
 

GROUND FIVE: THE COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE
 

CONVICTION BASED ON § 708-841(1)(b), WHICH VIOLATED ART. 1,


§ 14 HAWAII STATE CONSTITUTION.
 

SUPPORTING FACTS: THE COMPLAINT FAILED TO INCLUDE THE
 

PERSON THREATENS THE IMMINENT USE OF FORCE AGAINST THE
 

PERSON OF ANYONE WHO IS PRESENT WITH INTENT TO COMPEL
 

ACQUIESCENCE TO THE TAKING OR ESCAPING WITH THE PROPERTY; OR


(c) THE PERSON RECKLESSLY INFLICTS SERIOUS BODILY INJURY


UPON ANOTHER. SEE APPENDIX NO. 3 THE COMPLAINT, WITH


EXHIBITS INCLUDED IN SEPARATE MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF RULE
 

40. PETITIONER DOES INCORPORATE ALL ARGUMENTS, CITATIONS


AND AUTHORITIES, EXHIBITS SUBMITTED IN RULE 40 DATED 5-17­

2010, DOES REQUEST GROUND FIVE BE ADDED TO PETITION BEFORE


THE COURT FOR REVIEW.
 

On September 9, 2009, the Circuit Court denied
 

Stanley's Third Petition. Stanley timely appealed.
 

On appeal, Stanley contends:
 

1. The Judgment was obtained and sentence imposed in 

violation of Article III, § 1, Hawai'i State Constitution. 

2. The sentence is illegal, the circuit court did not
 

have subject matter jurisdiction, as mandated by Article III,
 

§ 1, under HRS § 708-841(1)(a).
 

3. Stanley's rights were violated under Article 1, 

§ 5, of the Hawai'i State Constitution to due process and equal 

protection of the law. 

4. Jurisdiction cannot be waived in a Complaint,
 

"Structural Defects require automatic reversal," United States
 

Constitutional Amendment 6.
 

5. The circuit court did not have jurisdiction to 

enforce conviction based on § 708-841(1)(b), which violated 

Article 1, § 14, of the Hawai'i State Constitution. 

6. The circuit court did not properly deny Stanley's
 

Rule 40, where the facts prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a
 

"Threatened use of Force" HRS § 708-841(1)(b) was not within the
 

complaint, and the court exceeded its subject-matter jurisdiction
 

by its generic definition of use of force.
 

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

7. The circuit court erroneously used HRPP Rule
 

40(a)(3) to procedurally default granting relief, where the trial
 

court exceeded its subject matter jurisdiction.
 

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs
 

submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to
 

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

well as the relevant statutory and case law, we resolve Stanley's
 

points of error as follows:
 

(1) The circuit court did not lack subject matter 

jurisdiction. HRS §§ 603-1 (Supp. 2010) and 603-21.5 (Supp. 

2003). "[P]roof that an event occurred in the City and County of 

Honolulu or on the Island of Oahu is proof that it occurred 

within the first judicial circuit." State v. Correa, 5 Haw. App. 

644, 650, 706 P.2d 1321, 1325 (1985). The Complaint against 

Stanley alleged that he committed Robbery in the Second Degree in 

the City and County of Honolulu. Robbery in the Second Degree is 

a criminal offense under the laws of the State of Hawai'i as 

specified by HRS § 708-841(1)(a). The City and County of 

Honolulu is within the first judicial circuit. Stanley was 

charged and tried in the first judicial circuit. Therefore, the 

circuit court did not lack subject matter jurisdiction. 

(2) A charge of Robbery in the Second Degree which 

does not define the term "force" is readily comprehensible to a 

person of common understanding; therefore, the charge was 

sufficient. "Force" is consistent with its commonly understood 

meaning and provided Stanley with notice of what was being 

charged. State v. Mita, 124 Hawai'i 385, 392, 245 P.3d 458, 465 

(2010). Therefore, the charge against Stanley was not 

insufficient, and the circuit court did not lack jurisdiction to 

enter a judgment of conviction for Robbery in the Second Degree. 

(3) To the extent that Stanley stated any claims not
 

based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction or lack of
 

jurisdiction because the charge was insufficient, those claims
 

are waived. Stanley did not prove the existence of extraordinary
 

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

circumstances to justify his failure to raise the issues in his
 

direct appeal or two prior HRPP Rule 40 petitions. Therefore,
 

relief is not available pursuant to HRPP Rule 40. HRPP Rule
 

40(a)(3).
 

Therefore,
 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the "Findings of Fact,
 

Conclusions of Law, and Order Denying Petition for Post-


Conviction Relief, Filed June 3, 2010," filed on September 9,
 

2010 in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit is affirmed.
 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, June 21, 2011. 

On the briefs: 

Charles Anthony Stanley,

Petitioner-Appellant pro se. 

Delanie D. Prescott-Tate,

Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,

City and County of Honolulu,

for Respondent-Appellee. 

Chief Judge 

Associate Judge 

Associate Judge
 

6