Opinion ID: 4204950
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: From offense to sentencing

Text: On September 22, 2010, Sanney was indicted on one count of sexual assault in the second degree in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (“HRS”) § 707-731(1)(b)(Supp. 2009)2 and one count of attempted sexual assault in the second degree in violation of HRS § 707-731(1)(b) and HRS § 705-5003 (1993). The indictment arose out of an incident that occurred in broad daylight on September 15, 2010 in Kapiolani Park. In front of numerous eyewitnesses, Sanney allegedly cut out the shorts of an unconscious homeless woman and performed cunnilingus, then attempted vaginal intercourse with her. Shortly after, police officers arrived and awoke the unconscious 2 HRS § 707-731(1)(b) provides in relevant part, “(1) A person commits the offense of sexual assault in the second degree if: . . . (b) The person knowingly subjects to sexual penetration another person who is mentally incapacitated or physically helpless. . . .” 3 HRS § 705-500, titled “Criminal attempt,” provides in relevant part: (1) A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if the person: (a) Intentionally engages in conduct which would constitute the crime if the attendant circumstances were as the person believes them to be; or (b) Intentionally engages in conduct which, under the circumstances as the person believes them to be, constitutes a substantial step in a course of conduct intended to culminate in the person’s commission of the crime. . . . 3  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  female, who indicated she did not know Sanney. Sanney was arrested and taken to the Oahu Community Correctional Center. At the time of his arrest, Sanney was forty-four years old, unemployed, and homeless. Sanney is a veteran with a history of alcohol and substance abuse issues, and had participated in a U.S. Veterans substance abuse program starting in September 2009; he was discharged in April 2010 for using marijuana. Since 1996, Sanney has had one conviction for criminal trespass in the second degree, four convictions for driving under the influence, one conviction for theft in the fourth degree, and was given a deferred acceptance of guilty plea for disorderly conduct. Sanney also had an immigration detainer on file, and an Immigration Enforcement Agent informed state officials that Sanney would be picked up for deportation if released from state custody. A jury trial was scheduled for Sanney, but was postponed several times. The trial week was eventually rescheduled and Sanney, unable to post bail after his arrest, remained in custody at the Oahu Community Correctional Center. The above information regarding the nature of the charged offenses and Sanney’s background was contained in Sanney’s file and available to the circuit court before his change of plea. During his rescheduled trial week, Sanney agreed to change his plea after his attorney said the judge was inclined to 4  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  sentence him to probation with up to eighteen months in jail (of which he had already served about ten months). There was no plea agreement with the State. The circuit court then conducted a change of plea hearing. Before the change of plea colloquy began, Sanney’s defense attorney stated: Your Honor, I guess after several status conferences with the Court and, you know, talking back and forth with Mr. Sanney, this case being set for trial tomorrow morning, it’s Mr. Sanney’s decision to enter a guilty plea as charged, and I did relay to him that the Court has given us an inclination for probation in this case with up to 18 months in jail, and, you know, based on that inclination he’s intending to change his plea. And I also did inform the Court that there is a federal hold that’s been placed, currently he’s facing deportation, and he understands that even if given probation, a conviction in this case will lead to automatic deportation. At the beginning of the change of plea colloquy, the circuit court informed Sanney: Now, Mr. Sanney, an inclination is not a promise . . . [T]here’s going to be a presentence report that’s going to be generated if you decide to plead guilty today . . . I know what relatively little the lawyers have told me about the case and about your background, but it’s that [presentence report] that’s very important, because that’s going to be a more in-depth explanation of who you are, and your history, and your characteristics and the offense. In addition, the Court would always consider what happens at the sentencing hearing -- you know the arguments; what, if anything, you have to say, and so on. So based on all of that, that’s how the Court is going to make its decision on what an appropriate sentence would be. So I can tell you that’s the inclination based on the representations I have. But as you can imagine, an inclination is only as good as the representations it is based on, so you need to understand that. Sanney responded, “I do.” After an extensive change of plea colloquy, the circuit court found that Sanney voluntarily, 5  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  knowingly, and intelligently entered no contest pleas to the charges and adjudged Sanney guilty of the charged offenses. After the presentence investigation and report (“PSI”)4 was prepared, a sentencing hearing was held. At the hearing, the circuit court expressed concern “about some of the representations in the PSI which, to [the circuit court], [were] different from the representations that were made at the time of the change of plea and based upon which the court did give its inclination of probation with an uncertain jail term.” The circuit court continued the hearing so the probation officer could be present. 4 “PSI” is the common acronym for the confidential presentence diagnosis and report prepared by judiciary probation officers pursuant to HRS § 706602(1) (1993 & Supp. 2012), which provides in part: (1) The pre-sentence diagnosis and report shall be made by personnel assigned to the court or other agency designated by the court and shall include: (a) An analysis of the circumstances attending the commission of the crime; (b) The defendant’s history of delinquency or criminality, physical and mental condition, family situation and background, economic status and capacity to make restitution or to make reparation to the victim or victims of the defendant’s crimes for loss or damage caused thereby, education, occupation, and personal habits; . . . . (e) Any other matters that the reporting person or agency deems relevant or the court directs to be included. . . . . “In enacting the Code, the legislature changed the Proposed Draft by substituting the phrase ‘pre-sentence diagnosis’ for the phrase ‘pre-sentence investigation[.]’” HRS § 706-602 supp. Cmt. (2014). This appears to explain why the acronym is “PSI” instead of “PSD. 6  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  At the continued sentencing hearing, the circuit court’s concerns focused on the following statements apparently made by Sanney to the probation officer: The defendant declined to provide a written statement but verbally reported that he pled no contest because he had a federal hold on him and his plea may change his deportation hold status. He said he was drunk and “high” from marijuana on the day of the offense and he is “only guilty of having sex in public.” The defendant reported he and the victim drank alcohol together with other people that morning and he consumed 12 shots of vodka and two marijuana joints and wanted to sleep. He stated he and the victim walked to another area of the park to lay [sic] down and the victim eventually passed out. The defendant reported he used his scissors to cut the crotch area of her shorts so he could put his mouth on her vagina and then “humped” the victim with his clothes on. The defendant said he was “turned on” due to the fact that he was having sex in public, in daylight, and other people saw what he was doing to the victim. . . . . The defendant reported that he attended the Veterans In Progress Program, US Vets in Kapolei, Hawaii [sic], from September, 2009 [to] April, 2010. He said that he was living on the street and felt tricked into going to live at the shelter because he only wanted somewhere to live but was not willing to participate in the substance abuse program. He stated that he was rebellious and he just “went through the motions” of the substance program and smoked marijuana immediately after his graduation ceremony. Defense counsel argued at length that the PSI did not contain anything the court did not know prior to accepting the change of plea, but did not request that Sanney be given an opportunity to withdraw his plea if the court did not follow its sentencing inclination. At the end of the sentencing hearing, the circuit court stated: And this is the thing about I felt tricked [sic]. You weren’t willing to do the substance abuse but went through the motions and smoked marijuana immediately after graduation. That’s what this says. Then I look at the four DUIs, which your attorney is right, we knew about the four DUIs. But, I mean, they do count as opportunities to do something about the problem, and, apparently, you know, 7  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  that wasn’t enough. So the Court looks at that. And, you know, it’s a little bit alarming to see a statement that the only -- apparently there’s a suggestion -- you said the only thing you did wrong was having sex in public and that it was a turn-on, which, I don’t know, it conflicts with what you’re saying today. But you know, these are -- I disagree with [defense counsel]. Instead of sentencing Sanney pursuant to the stated inclination of probation with eighteen months of imprisonment, the circuit court sentenced Sanney to ten years of imprisonment on both counts, with the terms to run concurrently. B. Motion to reconsider sentence and the first appeal Following the continued sentencing hearing, Sanney filed a motion to reconsider sentence. The only relief requested was for the circuit court to sentence Sanney to probation with eighteen months of imprisonment pursuant to its original inclination; there was no request to withdraw the plea. A hearing was scheduled, but it was continued after Sanney’s attorney withdrew and substitute counsel was appointed. Four days before the continued hearing date, however, the circuit court summarily denied Sanney’s motion without a hearing on the grounds that Sanney had not presented new evidence. Sanney’s current counsel filed the first appeal in this case, challenging the circuit court’s summary denial of his motion to reconsider. After the ICA affirmed in a summary disposition order, State v. Sanney, CAAP-12-0000654, 2013 WL 3776162 (App. July 8, 2013) (SDO), we accepted certiorari. In a memorandum opinion, we held that under the facts of this case, 8  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  the circuit court abused its discretion in summarily denying the motion for reconsideration without a hearing, and remanded the case for a hearing on Sanney’s motion. State v. Sanney, SCWCXX-XXXXXXX, 2014 WL 3928249 (Haw. Aug. 12, 2014)(mem.). C. Hearing on remand regarding Sanney’s motion to reconsider sentence On remand, the circuit court held a hearing on Sanney’s motion to reconsider sentence. Sanney’s attorney argued his client had changed his plea based on the court’s stated inclination. He insisted there was nothing significantly different between the information available at the change of plea hearing and the sentencing hearing. Sanney himself stated that his former attorney had told him the circuit court insinuated that if he pled out, the court would “parole[] [him] to the Feds and [he] was reluctant to do that even then.” There was no request to withdraw the plea. The circuit court discussed information it did not have at the time of the original sentencing, including defendant’s statements to the probation officer summarized above. The circuit court also provided Sanney with the opportunity to explain the statements that caused it concern. Sanney’s responses, however, did not assuage the circuit court’s concerns. The circuit court then ruled that “the sentence was a justifiable one based on the PSI and everything else that was 9  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  before [the court],” and denied Sanney’s motion to reconsider sentence. D. The current appeal and the ICA’s decision Following the hearing, Sanney filed the current appeal. Before the ICA, Sanney argued the case should be remanded for resentencing in accordance with the circuit court’s original inclination. In the alternative, Sanney requested the opportunity to withdraw his no contest plea, a request that had not been made before the circuit court. In a summary disposition order, the ICA affirmed the circuit court’s denial of Sanney’s motion to reconsider, reasoning that Sanney stated at the change of plea hearing that he understood that the court’s inclination was not a promise. State v. Sanney, CAAP-15-0000548, 2016 WL 3548352 (App. June 28, 2016) (SDO) at . The ICA concluded, after consideration of the reasons iterated by the circuit court at sentencing, that the circuit court did not commit a plain and manifest abuse of discretion in denying Sanney’s motion. The ICA did not address whether Sanney should have had the opportunity to withdraw his plea after the court declined to follow the sentencing inclination. E. Application for writ of certiorari and oral argument In his application for certiorari, Sanney argues the circuit court abused its discretion in denying his motion to 10  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  reconsider sentence, and that this court should either order the circuit court to impose the sentence it had been inclined to impose before the change of plea, or allow him to withdraw his plea. At oral argument, however, Sanney clarified that the only relief he seeks is for this court to order resentencing pursuant to the circuit court’s original sentencing inclination, as requested in the motion to reconsider filed in the circuit court. State v. Sanney, SCWC-15-0000548, Oral Argument, available at http://www.courts.state.hi.us./oral-argumentbefore-the-hawaii-supreme-court-scwc-15-548, at 1:05:35.