Opinion ID: 2639536
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The relevant facts follow.

Text: On February 22, 2002, Petitioner was charged by indictment, as a principal or accomplice, in Case 090, with (1) Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the First Degree under Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 712-1241(1)(a)(i) (2003) (Count I), (2) Prohibited Acts Related to Drug Paraphernalia in violation of HRS § 329-43.5(a) (1993) (Count II), (3) Attempted Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the First Degree under HRS §§ 705-500 (1993) and 712-1241(1)(b)(ii)(A) (2003) (Count III), (4) two counts for the offense of Promoting a Detrimental Drug in the Third Degree in violation of HRS § 712-1249(1) (1993) (Counts IV and V), and (5) Promoting a Controlled Substance, In, On, or Near Schools in violation of HRS § 712-1249.6(1)(b) (2003) (Count VIII). (Emphasis added.) Petitioner was also charged with Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the First Degree under HRS § 712-1241(1)(d) (2003) (Count VI), two counts of the offense of Prohibited Acts Related to Drug Paraphernalia under HRS § 329-43.5(a) (Count VII and X), and Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the Third Degree in violation of HRS § 712-1243(1) (2003) (Count IX). On September 16, 2002, in Case 498, Petitioner was charged by indictment with Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the Third Degree in violation of HRS § 712-1243(1) (Count I), Prohibited Acts Related to Drug Paraphernalia under HRS § 329-43.5(a) (Count II), and Promoting a Detrimental Drug in the Third Degree in violation of HRS § 712-1249(1) (Count III). On January 21, 2003, in Case 036, Petitioner was charged by complaint with Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the First Degree under HRS § 712-1241(1)(a)(I) (Count I), and Prohibited Acts Related to Drug Paraphernalia under HRS § 329-43.5(a) (Count II). On January 21, 2003, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawai`i (the prosecution) sent a plea offer to Petitioner's counsel. The plea offer encompassed Cases 090, 498, and 036 and discussed the sentence that could be imposed upon Petitioner. In relevant part, it stated: 4. The maximum term the State may argue for is two (2) consecutive twenty (20) year terms of imprisonment in the above mentioned cases, with a recommendation for a mandatory minimum of five (5) years prison; 3. [sic] There are no other general or specific agreements as to sentencing; 4. [sic] A presentence report will be requested. . . . . It is understood that the above constitutes the full and complete plea offer in this matter and that said plea offer affects only those matters referenced above. No additional promises, agreements, or conditions, either expressed or implied, have been entered into other than those set forth above. It is further understood that the sentence to be imposed upon the defendant is within the sole discretion of the sentencing judge, and that this department does not make any promise or representation as to what sentence the defendant will actually receive. (Emphasis added.) On January 23, 2003, Petitioner entered his No Contest Plea. The No Contest Plea incorporated the plea offer and provided in relevant part: 6. I understand that the court may impose any of the following penalties for the offense(s) to which I now plead: the maximum term of imprisonment, any extended term of imprisonment, any mandatory minimum term of imprisonment specified above; consecutive terms of imprisonment (if more than one charge); restitution; a fine; a fee and/or assessment; community service; probation with up to one year of imprisonment and other terms and conditions. . . . . 8. I have not been promised any kind of deal or favor of leniency by anyone for my plea, except that I have been told that the government has agreed as follows (if none, write None): See copy of January 21, 2003 letter from Carson Tani attached hereto as Attachment A. . . . . x The court has agreed to follow the plea agreement pursuant to Rule 11, Hawai`i Rules of Penal Procedure. (Emphases added.) The Pre-sentence Investigation Report (PIR) stated in relevant part: Cr. No. 02-1-0090(3): . . . . The police investigation reveals that on February 14, 2002, Search Warrant # 2002-36 was executed at 37 Kono Place, Kahului, a residence being occupied by [Appellant], Peter Kamalii [(Kamalii)], Jonathan Buesa [(Buesa)], Jason Bio and Patrick Racadio. Search Warrant 2002-37 was executed upon Scott Mikasa's person at the said location. As a result of Search Warrant # 2002-36, the search of a black bag that was next to Mikasa resulted in the recovery of the following: Item # 1: Twenty (20) ziplock packets possessing crystal methamphetamine with the combined net weight of 2.20 ounces. Item # 2: .29 grams of Marijuana Item # 3: Numerous clear plastic packets Identification of Mikasa and Kamalii were recovered from the black bag. A search within a black bag that was next to Buesa resulted in the recovery of the following: Item # 1: Two (2) ziplock packets possessing suspected crystal methamphetamine with the combined net weight of 4.88 grams. Item # 2: .04 net grams of marijuana Item # 3: Numerous clear plastic packets Item # 4: Digital scales Item # 5: $1,280 in U.S. Currency Identification of Buesa were recovered from within said bag. . . . . As a result of Search Warrant # 2002-37, Mikasa's person was search [sic]. Found was $1,872.00 in cash, identification of Mikasa, and a packet possessing .54 grams was recovered from his shorts pocket. (Emphasis added.) The sentencing hearing took place on March 20, 2003. The court acknowledged that it was aware of the plea agreement and was in receipt of the PIR and a letter from Petitioner. In part an undated letter from Petitioner that was addressed to the court related the following: My drug addiction is the real reason that I'm here today. It's true that I'm responsible for everything I'm charged with, but there are other facts to this case that I would like to present before you pass sentence. Crystal methamphetamine is my addiction. I am totally addicted to this drug, and this drug alone. I don't drink, smoke, or do any other drug but ice. Everyday, all day. 24/7. I didn't have a life. Ice was my life. I was powerless. I was not the type of drug dealer that most people would refer to as a dealer, because what I did was the best way I knew for me to support my drug habit. I never did it for the money, or the girls, the cars, jewelry, or anything else. I was just an errand boy. I picked up and I delivered drugs and cash in return for my own personal supply. And as long as I had my dope I was happy. I didn't make any money for myself because I didn't want any. I just wanted my dope. I've been in car accidents because I fell asleep while driving because I was up for days with no sleep. I didn't eat, didn't sleep, and a lot of times I didn't even take a bath. Just normal everyday things were non-existent. I didn't have friends. I didn't have a girlfriend. Ice was my girlfriend, my friend, my enemy, my mom, my dad, my everything. It was sickening. And I couldn't stop. I knew it wasn't good for me and that it would eventually destroy me, but I still couldn't stop. Ice had total control of the life I was living. I am a drug addict and I need help. This is a very powerful and deadly drug. If I was released right now I would still smoke ice. That's how much power it has on me. I'm sorry for the things I've done, and the people I've hurt. I didn't mean to hurt anyone. I've been doing some soul-searching, but it's still a little confusing and unclear. There are a lot of things I can't remember. All I know now is that even with the reality of facing prison, I still crave for ice. I just can't understand it. Petitioner's counsel discussed Petitioner's struggles with drug addiction and asked that any sentences imposed upon Petitioner be served concurrently. The prosecution then argued that Petitioner was dealing drugs to support his own drug habit and had committed additional offenses while released on bail on Case 090: [I]t's just too bad that the use by this defendant, I guess, inevitably escalated to dealing, because, as the court knows, the only real way to support a habit like [Petitioner's] is to deal. Because, you know, there is no way you can come up with the amount of money that you need. The problem with the dealing, your Honor, is that dealing effects [sic] pretty much everybody in our community, because when you deal large amounts of methamphetamine, obviously that promotes more drug use by the users. . . . . And when [Petitioner] was arrested, he was released on bail. And then he commits another charge of Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the Third Degree, but that's just a residue amount. And then while he's still awaiting trial on the initial case in 0090, he's arrested again with an even larger amount of methamphetamine, about 94  a little over 94 grams of methamphetamine. We are talking three and a half ounces of methamphetamine, your Honor. He's also got about $8700 in his pocket. So I think it's clear what [Petitioner] was doing in 0090, and 0036, which is, you know, just by the large amounts [sic] of cash that was found on him and the large amounts of methamphetamine that was found on him, that it was for distribution, your Honor. The prosecution requested that the court sentence Petitioner to two consecutive twenty year sentences. The court discussed the allegations of dealing with the prosecution: THE COURT: If I'm reading [Petitioner's] letter, it would appear that he is  if I'm reading it correctly, he's conceded that he was dealing. . . . . THE COURT: . . . So sounds like he is not taking issue with that. I guess I just comment on that because your argument may suggest that there is an issue about that, but it sounds like that's not being  [PROSECUTOR] No, your Honor. I didn't mean that to be an issue. THE COURT: All right. Petitioner made a brief statement in which he stated that he needed help to overcome his drug addiction. The court then proceeded to address Petitioner and to impose sentence. The court first stated that a term of imprisonment would be imposed and then noted the troubling nature of the facts of the case: All right. [Petitioner], in looking at the facts of this case, and considering the factors that the court must consider in  that are set forth in Chapter 706 of the [HRS], it's clear that the court should impose a  a term of imprisonment here. So that, in the court's view, is a given here. But when I start to take a hard look at the facts of the case, this set of facts becomes quite troubling. The court observed that the amount of drugs recovered from Petitioner, when parceled out, could amount to over a thousand uses of drugs by members of the community: I've had quite a few individuals come into this courtroom who use crystal methamphetamine, and they will often say that they use, for example, a tenth of a gram to get high. And I don't know if you've thought about it in these terms, but if that's correct  and I have heard enough people say that to me  with 58 grams, actually, more than that, 2.2 ounces, more than 58 grams in one instance, and some 90-plus grams in another instance  I don't know if you have thought about it, but your actions in this community have suggested that you put out a lot of misery and spread a lot of misery throughout this community. I don't know if you have thought about that, but just that amount alone, if you consider it in tenths of a gram, you know, that's over a thousand uses of crystal methamphetamine, and that's obviously extremely serious. That's a lot of pain for one community to absorb. (Emphasis added.) The court then expounded on the cost to society of drug use: The cost to society here goes beyond those that are using, because you not only have those that are using, but  we see it all the time when we look at children who suffer as a result of parents and loved ones being addicted to drugs. So it goes well beyond those that are actually using the drug. It's those who are around that person as well. And in any community where people think that it only involves the users and their loved ones, individuals that are addicted to drugs like crystal methamphetamine commit many, many, many crimes, and so it has an impact on everyone else in the community. Appellant's alleged involvement in dealing was then further discussed by the court: And, I mean, I have to tell you this in very frank terms, and that is if you are on the supply side of this equation, and you're supplying people with the drugs, the price that people pay to you for those drugs is going to be very, very small compared to the price the people are going to pay in this courtroom when it comes time to answer [for] that kind of conduct. The court has seen so much pain inflicted and so much misery inflicted by this drug that, you know, my feeling is all I can say to you and to others that choose to spread this kind of misery around is what sometimes is said on the street, is Enough already. The court also expressed its frustration with Petitioner's post-charge conduct: You were picked up. You went out, got out on bail. You got involved again, got out on bail. You went out and came back again with even more of the drug, and here you are. I think it's important for this court to make sure that you understand and others understand that this is not a community, based on our laws and the principles that guide this court, that will tolerate this kind of conduct. I'm going to fashion a sentence for you which I think  I hope will send a very clear message to you, and to others, that this kind of conduct can not and will not be tolerated. (Emphasis added.) As part of its sentence the court imposed two consecutive sentences of twenty years on Petitioner. [4] After imposing sentence, the court opined that Petitioner was involved in a conspiracy: And, of course, you know, I want others to understand, [Petitioner], because I know they will have contact with you and they are going to want to know what happened. Clearly, you are involved in  well, I shouldn't say clearly, but it certainly appears from the record that there is, based on what you have told me, a conspiracy to distribute drugs here in the State of Hawaii, a very active one. And so I would imagine that some of those that are involved with you are going to be kind of curious as to what happens to you, and other individuals that think about coming to this community and distributing drugs or possessing drugs of this nature will likewise be interested. (Emphasis added.)