Source: http://hi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20150225_0000140.HI.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-04-23 11:55:19
Document Index: 512507466

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 10', '§ 351', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 701', '§ 10', '§ 10', '§ 351']

| State v. Deming
State v. Deming
STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.MICHAEL DEMING, Defendant-Appellant
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT HONOLULU DIVISION. CASE NO. 1P1120000029.
On the briefs: Michael E. Deming, Defendant-Appellant, Pro se.
By: Foley, Presiding Judge, Fujise and Ginoza, JJ.
Defendant-Appellant Michael Deming (Deming), pro se, appeals from the Notice of Entry of Judgment and/or Order, filed on March 12, 2012 in the District Court of the First Circuit, Honolulu Division (district court).[1] Judgment was entered against Deming for violation of Revised Ordinances of Honolulu (ROH) § 10-1.2(a)(12) (Supp. 2012),[2] which prohibits entering or remaining in a public park during the night hours that the park is closed if signs are posted indicating the hours of park closure. Deming was fined $100 and ordered to pay a $30 fee pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 351-62.6 (Supp. 2014).
On appeal, Deming asserts over sixteen (16) points of error. Many of Deming's points of error are duplicative, raise issues that he did not raise in the district court, or are not supported by any relevant argument.
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, we resolve Deming's points of error as follows and affirm.
Deming's opening brief fails to comply with Hawai'i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28 in numerous ways. For example, Deming's opening brief fails to provide a concise statement of the case providing record references to support his stated facts; Deming's points of error fail to indicate where in the record the alleged errors occurred, where in the record he objected to the alleged errors, or the manner in which the alleged errors were brought to the attention of the district court; Deming fails to provide substantive arguments in support of many points of error, and fails to cite to authorities, statutes and parts of the record relied upon. See HRAP 28(b). Notwithstanding Deming's noncompliance with HRAP 28, given his pro se status, we will address Deming's contentions to the extent they are discernible. Housing Finance & Dev. Corp. v. Ferguson, 91 Hawai'i 81, 85-86, 979 P.2d 1107, 1111-12 (1999).
Points of Error 1(a), 2, 9, and 15 Deming claims there was insufficient evidence to convict him and that his sentence was grossly disproportionate to the offense. We do not agree. In this case, there was substantial evidence to support Deming's conviction. State v. Matavale, 115 Hawai'i 149, 157-58, 166 P.3d 322, 330-31 (2007).
ROH § 10-1.2(a)(12) prohibits a person from entering or remaining in any public park during the night hours that the park is closed, provided that signs are posted indicating the hours that the park is closed. Officer Sean Costigan (Officer Costigan) cited Deming for being in Thomas Square Park at around 10:15 p.m. Officer Costigan testified that Thomas Square is a City and County of Honolulu park maintained by the Department of Parks and Recreation. " 'Public park' means any park,. .. or other recreation area or facility under the control, maintenance and management of the department of parks and recreation." ROH § 10-1.1 (Supp. 2013). Therefore, Thomas Square is a public park within the meaning of ROH § 10-1.2.
Officer Costigan testified that there were at least four, but possibly six, signs posted at the park that stated the park was closed from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. Deming was inside a public park during night hours when the public park was closed. There was substantial evidence of every element of the offense to support Deming's conviction for violating ROH § 10-1.2(a)(12). Therefore, points of error 1(a), 9, and 15 are without merit.
Violation of ROH 10-1.2(a)(12) is a petty misdemeanor. HRS § 701-107 (2014). The maximum penalty for violating ROH § 10-1.2(a)(12) is a $500 fine or 30 days imprisonment, or both. ROH § 10-1.6(d) (Supp. 2013). In addition, a $30 fee shall be imposed upon every defendant convicted for a petty misdemeanor. HRS § 351-62.6. Deming's sentence was a fine of $100 and imposition of the mandatory $30 fee. Deming does not state how his sanctions were grossly disproportionate to his conviction for violating ...