Opinion ID: 1443938
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Baranco case and the collateral order doctrine

Text: In Baranco, this court addressed whether it had jurisdiction to consider an appeal from the circuit court's denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment with prejudice on the grounds that retrial, after a mistrial, would violate the defendants' constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy. 77 Hawai`i at 352, 884 P.2d at 730. We held that, based on the United States Supreme Court's rationale in Abney, the denial of the Barancos' motion was an immediately appealable collateral order, and, therefore, we had jurisdiction. Id. at 354-55, 884 P.2d at 732-33. In Abney, the Court held that an order denying a motion to dismiss, in which the petitioners argued that retrial after conviction and remand exposed them to double jeopardy, was immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine. The Court reasoned that the order denying Abney's motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds was a final decision and, thus, immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 [7] because, pursuant to Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949), the district court's order was a collateral order. The Court stated: This decision appears to fall in that small class which finally determines claims of right separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the action, too important to be denied review and too independent of the cause itself to require that appellate consideration be deferred until the whole case is adjudicated. Abney, 431 U.S. at 658-59, 97 S.Ct. at 2040 (quoting Cohen, 337 U.S. at 546, 69 S.Ct. at 1226) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Supreme Court explained that, under the collateral order exception, an interlocutory order is appealable if it: (1) fully disposes of the question at issue; (2) resolves an issue completely collateral to the merits of the case; and (3) involves important rights which would be irreparably lost if review had to await a final judgment. Abney, 431 U.S. at 658-659, 97 S.Ct. at 2039-2040. Baranco, 77 Hawai`i at 353-54, 884 P.2d at 731-32. See also Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, 489 U.S. 794, 799, 109 S.Ct. 1494, 1498, 103 L.Ed.2d 879 (1989); Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 468, 98 S.Ct. 2454, 2457-58, 57 L.Ed.2d 351 (1978). The Abney Court determined that these requirements were satisfied in the case before it because, [i]n the first place, there can be no doubt that such orders constitute a complete, formal, and, in the trial court, final rejection of a criminal defendant's double jeopardy claim.... Hence, Cohen 's threshold requirement of a fully consummated decision is satisfied. Moreover, the very nature of a double jeopardy claim is such that it is collateral to, and separable from, the principal issue at the accused's impending criminal trial, i.e., whether or not the accused is guilty of the offense charged.... Finally, the rights conferred on a criminal accused by the Double Jeopardy Clause would be significantly undermined if appellate review of double jeopardy claims were postponed until after conviction and sentence. Abney, 431 U.S. at 659-60, 97 S.Ct. at 2041. The Court therefore held that pretrial orders rejecting claims of former jeopardy, such as presently before us, constitute `final decisions' and thus satisfy the jurisdictional prerequisites of § 1291. Id. at 662, 97 S.Ct. at 2042 (emphasis added) (footnote omitted). In Baranco, the order appealed from, like the order before the Abney Court, rejected a claim of former jeopardy that was based on the right not to be twice tried for the same offense. We expressly adopted the Abney rationale and held that the collateral order exception to the final judgment rule permits an interlocutory appeal of an order denying a pretrial motion to dismiss an indictment on double jeopardy grounds. 77 Hawai`i at 355, 884 P.2d at 733. We have often recognized that there are three separate and distinct aspects to the protections offered by the double jeopardy clause. Double jeopardy protects individuals against: (1) a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; (2) a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and (3) multiple punishments for the same offense. State v. Higa, 79 Hawai`i 1, 5, 897 P.2d 928, 932 (1995) (citing State v. Lessary, 75 Haw. 446, 454, 865 P.2d 150, 154 (1994), and United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 440, 109 S.Ct. 1892, 1897, 104 L.Ed.2d 487 (1989)). Onitveros's motion to dismiss, unlike those considered in Abney and Baranco, asserted a violation of only the third double jeopardy protectionprotection against multiple punishments for the same offense. On appeal, Ontiveros contends: The double jeopardy clauses of the United States Constitution (the Fifth Amendment) and the Hawaii Constitution (Art. I, § 10) protect a person against a second prosecution and/or a second punishment for the same wrongful act or offense. State v. Cabral, 8 Haw.App. 506, 511, 810 P.2d 672, 676, aff'd, 72 Haw. 603, 822 P.2d 957 (1991). The question in the instant case is whether Defendant is at risk of a second punishment for the same wrongful act of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor (DUI). (Emphasis added.) Unlike the right not to be twice put to trial for the same offense, which was at issue in both Baranco and Abney, the right not to be subjected to double punishments does not satisfy the third prong of the collateral order doctrine because that right is not significantly undermined if review is postponed until after conviction and sentence. With regard to this requirement of the collateral order doctrine, the Abney Court explained that not all orders affecting rights protected by the double jeopardy clause would warrant treatment as immediately appealable collateral orders; rather, only those that would infringe the right not to be tried for the same offense after conviction or acquittal would warrant such treatment: To be sure, the Double Jeopardy Clause protects an individual against being twice convicted for the same crime, and that aspect of the right can be fully vindicated on an appeal following final judgment, as the Government suggests. However, this Court has long recognized that the Double Jeopardy Clause protects an individual against more than being subjected to double punishments. It is a guarantee against being twice put to trial for the same offense. 431 U.S. at 660-61, 97 S.Ct. at 2041 (some emphases in original and some emphasis added) (footnote omitted). Abney, therefore, established that denials of motions to dismiss based on arguments that, if correct, would establish that the defendant has a right not to be tried are collateral orders immediately appealable as final decisions. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 525, 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2815, 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985) (stating that, [w]hen a district court has denied a defendant's claim of right not to stand trial, on double jeopardy grounds, for example, we have consistently held the court's decision appealable, for such a right cannot be effectively vindicated after the trial has occurred, and holding that denial of a claim of qualified immunity, which confers immunity from suit, rather than mere defense to liability, is appealable collateral order) (citing Abney ). Unlike the protection against a second prosecution for the same offense, the protection against a second punishment, which was the basis for Ontiveros's motion to dismiss, can be fully vindicated on an appeal following final judgment[,] Abney, 431 U.S. at 660, 97 S.Ct. at 2041, and, therefore, is not an immediately appealable collateral order. See also C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction § 3918.5, at 500 ( Abney decision does not mean that there is a right to immediate appeal of every pretrial ruling that rejects a double jeopardy argument; appeal has been denied when the argument understood as being based on multiple punishments rather than multiple prosecutions); United States v. Central Liquor Co., 628 F.2d 1264 (10th Cir. 1980) (explaining that right not to be tried more than once and right not to receive multiple convictions and punishments for the same offense are conceptually distinct rights and holding that denial of motion to dismiss based on latter held not to be appealable collateral order), cert. denied, Central Liquor Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 1022, 101 S.Ct. 590, 66 L.Ed.2d 484 (1980), rh'g denied, 449 U.S. 1104, 101 S.Ct. 905, 66 L.Ed.2d 833 (1981). We hold, therefore, that the district court's denial of Ontiveros's motion to dismiss was not an immediately appealable collateral order. Because the notice of appeal was jurisdictionally defective, it did not divest the district court of jurisdiction over the DUI charge. Where a motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds is premised on the protection against multiple punishments, rather than the right not to stand trial at all, the denial of the motion is not effectively unreviewable on appeal and, therefore, does not satisfy the requirements of the collateral order doctrine as enumerated in Abney and Baranco. Although we are without jurisdiction to address the merits of Ontiveros's interlocutory appeal from the denial of his motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds, the same issue is raised by his appeal from the DUI conviction, which we now consider.