Opinion ID: 4535365
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: uchima’s appeal

Text: On appeal to the ICA, Uchima contended that the district court erred in denying the motion to suppress, arguing that his right to remain silent under article I, section 10 of the Hawaiʻi Constitution was violated because he was never advised of his Miranda rights and that his verbal statements and non-verbal communicative acts were the product of custodial interrogations. (Citing State v. Tsujimura, 140 Hawaiʻi 299, 400 P.3d 500 (2017).) Uchima also argued that the officer’s medical rule-out questions and questions as to whether he understood the instructions on the FST were likely to evoke an incriminating response regardless of how he answered, and that his actual performance on the FST was a communicative response. Uchima asserted that the district court’s error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and that without the officer’s erroneously admitted testimony, there was not substantial evidence to support his conviction. The State responded that the district court did not err and the Judgment should be affirmed. In a summary disposition order, the ICA concluded that the admission of Uchima’s performance on the FST did not violate his right against self-incrimination because performance on an FST is neither communication nor testimony. And, the ICA held, Uchima’s right to remain silent was not violated when he 8 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER provided answers to the medical rule-out questions because Tsujimura concerned whether pre-arrest silence could be used as substantive evidence against the defendant and did not involve a defendant’s statements to police. The ICA accordingly held that the district court did not err in admitting Officer Townsend’s observations of Uchima’s driving, Uchima’s answers to the medical rule-out questions, and Uchima’s performance on the FST. The ICA also concluded that there was substantial evidence to support Uchima’s conviction. The ICA thus affirmed the Judgment.
The ICA judgment on appeal was filed on March 19, 2018. On March 27, 2018, Uchima’s motion for an extension of time to file an application for a writ of certiorari (Application) was granted, and the deadline was extended to May 18, 2018. Six days after the extended due date, Uchima filed his Application along with his counsel’s motion to accept the untimely Application. In the motion to accept, Uchima argues that this court should consider his Application on the merits despite its ostensible untimeliness because the failure to file within the deadline resulted entirely from either computer system error or his counsel’s mistake. In a declaration attached to the motion, counsel for Uchima avers that he “finished drafting the 9 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Application and believed that he properly efiled it” on May 18, 2018. Counsel states that he would not have sought an extension of time to file the Application if he had not intended to file it. Counsel adds that he “had no reason to suspect that there was any issue in creating Uchima’s case.” Upon receiving notice on May 24, 2018, that the State had filed a motion to execute Uchima’s sentence in district court, counsel states that he checked the Judiciary Electronic Filing and Service System and was unable to locate a case for Uchima’s Application.8 Counsel explains that he also “checked his emails” and discovered that he had never received an email confirming that a case for Uchima’s Application had been created on May 18, 2018. Counsel indicates that after seeking advice, he filed the motion to accept along with the Application. Counsel declares that he is unsure as to why the Application was not filed, surmising that it was due to user or computer system error on that particular occasion and that he has filed numerous certiorari applications in the past using the same procedure without any issues. The State did not file an opposition to the motion to accept or a response to Uchima’s Application. 8 The Judiciary Electronic Filing and Service System allows for the electronic filing of court documents. 10 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER