Opinion ID: 871390
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Upon his arrest, [Petitioner] posted cash bail

Text: (continued...) 7 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER 13 (...continued) of $1,000.00 and was released from custody on July 25, 2004. 3. [Petitioner’s] initial arraignment was set for August 9, 2004 in [the court]. 4. [Petitioner] failed to appear at his August 9, 2004 arraignment whereupon [the court] ordered (a) forfeiture of [Petitioner’s] bail of $1,000, and (b) issuance of a bench warrant for [Petitioner’s] arrest with new bail set at $150.00. 5. A judgment of bail forfeiture . . . was filed on August 9, 2004. 6. At the time of his August 9, 2004 arraignment, [Petitioner] was in custody in California on an unrelated criminal matter, but [Petitioner] was subsequently released from custody in California and eventually returned to Hawai#i. 7. Within thirty (30) days of [the court’s] order of forfeiture of [Petitioner’s] bail of $1,000.00, said funds were transferred from the Judiciary’s fiscal account to the State of Hawaii general fund account. . . . 9. Upon execution of the bench warrant, [Petitioner] posted $150.00 bail and was released pending arraignment in [the court] on December 20, 2005. . . . 11. At the December 20, 2005 arraignment, [Petitioner’s counsel] raised with [the court] the issue of [Petitioner’s] bail of $1,000 forfeited on August 9, 2004. 12. [The court] directed [Petitioner’s counsel] to file a written motion concerning any request by [Petitioner] to reinstate said forfeited bail. . . . 14. On October 24, 2006[,] [Petitioner] and [Petitioner’s counsel] appeared for trial[.] . . . . . . 16. [Respondent] then orally moved to continue [Petitioner’s] trial as certain prosecution witnesses were not present. [The court] denied [Respondent’s] motion to continue and granted [Petitioner’s] oral motion to dismiss. The charge against [Petitioner] was accordingly dismissed with prejudice on October 24, 2006. . . . 18. The $50 bench warrant cost was deducted from the $150.00 in bail posted by [Petitioner] on October 6, 2005, and the $100.00 balance of [Petitioner’s] bail was refunded to [Petitioner] on October 24, 2006. 19. On October 25, 2006, [Petitioner] filed the instant “Motion to Set Aside Bail Forfeiture and Refund Bail” (“Motion”). . . . 21. [Petitioner’s] Motion originally came on [sic] for hearing . . . on November 15, 2006[.] . . . 22. Following a brief discussion, the court continued the hearing on [Petitioner’s] Motion to November 22, 2006 to obtain clarification regarding the policies and procedures of the fiscal division of the State Judiciary regarding bail forfeitures. . . . (continued...) 8 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER The court concluded, inter alia, that Petitioner violated the general conditions of his release by failing to obtain permission to leave the jurisdiction, as required by HRS § 804-7.4;14 Petitioner’s First Motion filed on October 25, 2006 was untimely because Petitioner knew on December 20, 2005 that his bail was forfeited; and Petitioner’s “mere claims” that he was incarcerated on August 9, 2004, without further explanation of the circumstances did not amount to “good cause” to set aside the First Judgment.15 13 (...continued) 24. [Petitioner’s counsel] argued the Motion on [Petitioner’s] behalf, and [Respondent] took no position thereon. Following argument, the court denied [Petitioner’s] Motion. (Emphases added.) 14 HRS § 804-7.4 states as follows: Any person released on bail . . . shall be released subject to the following conditions: (1) The person shall not commit a federal, state or local offense during the period of release; (2) The person shall appear for all court hearings unless notified by the person’s attorney that the person’s appearance is not required; and (3) The person shall remain in the State of Hawai#i unless approval is obtained by a court of competent jurisdiction to leave the jurisdiction of the court. (Emphasis added.) 15 The court entered the following relevant conclusions: 2. Bail is “conditioned for the appearance of the defendant at the session of a court.” HRS § 804-1. 3. A defendant who has given bail must “appear promptly and respond thereto” and, upon failure to do so, default shall enter and be evidence of the breach of the defendant’s appearance bond. HRS § 804-17. 4. The court was mandated on August 9, 2004 to enter default based on [Petitioner’s] failure to appear. (continued...) 9 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER