Opinion ID: 871615
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Merits of the Stay Issue

Text: Proceeding to the merits of the issue, we conclude that the family court erred by denying Kiese's request for a stay. Under HRAP Rule 8(c) (1984), Stays in criminal cases shall be had according to law. HRS § 641-14(a) (1993) provides, The filing of a notice of appeal or the giving of oral notice in open court at the time of sentence by the defendant or the defendant's counsel of intention to take an appeal may operate as a stay of execution and may suspend the operation of any sentence or order of probation, in the discretion of the trial court. Although stays are discretionary under HRS § 641-14, HRS § 804-4(a) provides, The right to bail shall continue after conviction of a ... petty misdemeanor[.] See also HRS § 804-4(b)(No defendant entitled to bail, ... shall be subject, without the defendant's written consent, to the operation of any sentenced passed upon the defendant, while any proceedings to procure a review of any action of the trial court ... are pending and undetermined, except as provided in section 641-14(a)[.]). In State v. Ortiz , we held, An accused misdemeanant, petty misdemeanant, or law violator on bail is entitled to bail as a matter of right after conviction and pending appellate review. 74 Haw. 343, 356, 845 P.2d 547, 553 (1993). Furthermore, pursuant to State v. Miller, 79 Hawai`i 194, 200-01, 900 P.2d 770, 776-77 (1995), once release on bail pending appeal is secured, a trial court is without jurisdiction under the sentence of probation that is the subject of the defendant's appeal. Therefore, we hold that Kiese, as a petty misdemeanant on bail after conviction, was entitled to a continuance of bail pending appellate review, during which time the trial court was without jurisdiction to execute his probationary sentence; accordingly, the family court erred by denying Kiese a stay of his petty misdemeanor sentence pending appeal.