Opinion ID: 4690791
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sandoval’s Points of Error

Text: Sandoval raised five points of error in the ICA, rephrased for clarity as follows: (1) whether the circuit court erred when it concluded that Sandoval’s no-contest pleas in Cases 1 and 2 were entered into voluntarily, intelligently, and knowingly; (2) whether the circuit court abused its discretion when it imposed consecutive sentences because it failed to advise Sandoval of the potential for consecutive sentences when it accepted Sandoval’s stipulation to revoke probation; (3) whether the circuit court erred by failing to state the specific factors it considered when imposing consecutive sentences; (4) whether the circuit court erred by relying on Sandoval’s refusal to admit guilt when imposing consecutive sentences; and (5) whether there was substantial evidence to support Sandoval’s conviction of second-degree assault in Case 3. As to his first point of error, Sandoval specifically challenged four aspects of his no-contest plea: (1) “the trial court failed to advise [him] of the maximum penalty provided by law for the adjudicated offenses”; (2) “the trial court failed 15  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  to advise [him] of the impact a consecutive sentence would have”; (3) “the trial court failed to advise [him] that he had the right to a jury trial,” and (4) “the trial court failed to inquire whether [his] ‘willingness to plead guilty was a result from a plea agreement as required by [Hawaiʻi Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP)] Rule 11(d).’” 6 (Quoting State v. Solomon, 107 6 HRPP Rule 11 provides in relevant part: (b) No contest. A defendant may plead no contest only with the consent of the court. Such a plea shall be accepted by the court only after due consideration of the views of the parties and the interest of the public in the effective