Opinion ID: 2623404
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: As previously noted, HRS § 571-14(1) provides in pertinent part that the family court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction[ ] ... [t]o try any offense committed against a child by the child's parent or guardian or by any other person having the child's legal or physical custody.... Adams contends that the family court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Counts III, IV, V, and VI of the indictment inasmuch as he was not a parent or a guardian of Complainant B, nor did he have legal or physical custody of Complainant B. At the outset, we note that, pursuant to HRPP Rule 40(a)(3) (2000): Inapplicability. Rule 40 proceedings shall not be available and relief thereunder shall not be granted where the issues sought to be raised have been previously ruled upon or were waived. Except for a claim of illegal sentence, an issue is waived if the petitioner knowingly and understandingly failed to raise it and it could have been raised before the trial, at the trial, on appeal, in a habeas corpus proceeding or any other proceeding actually conducted, or in a prior proceeding actually initiated under this rule, and the petitioner is unable to prove the existence of extraordinary circumstances to justify the petitioner's failure to raise the issue. There is a rebuttable presumption that a failure to appeal a ruling or to raise an issue is a knowing and understanding failure. (Emphases added.) Adams raised the issue of the family court's jurisdiction for the first time in his Rule 40 petition. Inasmuch as it could have been raised before he entered his plea or on direct appeal of his original conviction, the issue would ordinarily be considered waived under HRPP Rule 40(a)(3). However, jurisdiction of the offense charged and of the person of the accused is a fundamental and indispensable prerequisite to a valid prosecution. State v. Meyers, 72 Haw. 591, 593, 825 P.2d 1062, 1064 (1992) (citations omitted). Indeed, [q]uestions regarding subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of a cause of action. When reviewing a case where the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, the appellate court retains jurisdiction, not on the merits, but for the purpose of correcting the error in jurisdiction. A judgment rendered by a circuit court without subject matter jurisdiction is void. Amantiad v. Odum, 90 Hawai`i 152, 159, 977 P.2d 160, 167 (1999) (internal citations omitted). We therefore turn to Adams's contention that the family court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Counts III, IV, V, and VI of the indictment. Adams does not specifically challenge any of the circuit court's FOFs or COLs that relate to the family court's jurisdiction over Counts III, IV, V, and VI, as required by Hawai`i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 28(b)(4)(C) (2000). Nevertheless, to the extent that we are able to glean from his brief and the circuit court's order the COL pertinent to his argument, we will address Adams's contention in the interest of justice and fairness. See Dan, 76 Hawai`i at 428, 879 P.2d at 533. In its November 19, 2001 order, the circuit court made the following relevant COLs pertaining to the issue of jurisdiction over Counts III, IV, V, and VI of the indictment: