Opinion ID: 1209767
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Ineffective assistance on appeal

Text: In order to establish the ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal, a petitioner must show that (1) his appellate counsel omitted an appealable issue, and (2) in light of the entire record, the status of the law, and the space and time limitations inherent in the appellate process, a reasonably competent, informed and diligent criminal attorney would not have omitted that issue. Briones v. State, 74 Haw. 442, 466-67, 848 P.2d 966, 977-78 (1993). Domingo testified at the Rule 40 hearing regarding the appeal as follows: Q. Now, you mentioned as your fourth ground on your petition during attorney and client research Petitioner advised attorney about errors on trial. Can you tell the Court what errors you were talking about? A. Well, first of all, the conviction or the way they convicted me and some testimony by the Judge that was  that he favored the State's circumstantial evidence instead of the direct evidence that they have found against me. My life was in danger, and the State's using the fact that  of me calling the police to come and help because I have  the guy was still alive at that time and I wanted to help him yet, and used that against me that said that it was intentional in saying that, you know, I have  I had planned to murder the guy, but it was all coincidence, see. They shouldn't have used that part against me. I think it was in closing ar  on the closing argument. And when he made the appeal I don't think he stated directly the way I said it. He said that he wrote it differently, explained it  Q. Is there any other instruction that you gave your attorney that he failed to follow? A. Well, that's, that was just the mixed feeling I had was the appeal briefs, I think that was about it. Q. Was there any other instruction that your attorney did not follow that you gave to that attorney? A. I don't think so. From this testimony, we can discern two issues that Domingo apparently believes should have been raised by his appellate counsel: (1) that the trial judge improperly weighed the evidence; and (2) that the State improperly introduced evidence of statements made by Domingo when he called 911. As to the first issue, it is well-settled that an appellate court will not pass upon issues dependent upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence; this is the province of the trial judge. Amfac, Inc. v. Waikiki Beachcomber Investment Co., 74 Haw. 85, 117, 839 P.2d 10, 28 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), reconsideration denied, 74 Haw. 650, 843 P.2d 144 (1992); see also State v. Aplaca, 74 Haw. at 65-66, 837 P.2d at 1304-05. Thus, the failure to raise the issue that the trial judge improperly weighed the evidence does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal. As to the second issue, the record reveals that trial counsel did not object to the evidence of the statements made by Domingo when he called 911. If appellate counsel was precluded from raising an issue on appeal because trial counsel failed to preserve that issue for appellate review, that issue is not an `appealable issue.' Briones, 74 Haw. at 466 n. 14, 848 P.2d at 977-78 n. 14. Moreover, Domingo has pointed to no statute, rule, or constitutional provision that would prohibit the State from using statements made in a 911 call at trial against the caller. Thus, Domingo has not established that counsel's failure to raise the 911 issue constituted ineffective assistance on appeal.