Opinion ID: 2514968
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: oral rulings

Text: At the December 7, 2005 hearing, the circuit court made an oral ruling denying the prosecution's motion, stating: [T]he Court is going to deny the State's motion for repeat offender treatment in this case and mandatory minimum term on the following grounds. The State has failed to prove that the defendant was represented by counsel or that the defendant knowingly or intelligently waived representation at the time of prior conviction as required by State v. Freitas and State v. Afong . The Afong case is 61 Haw. 281[, 602 P.2d 927]. Id. at 380, 173 P.3d at 527. The deputy prosecutor then orally moved for reconsideration. [DEPUTY PROSECUTOR]: May I ask or at least make an oral motion for reconsideration at this time? The basis for that is this[: t]he Court had stated that the State has not proven that he wasdefendant was represented by counsel. I would refer the Court to State's Exhibit Number 2, which has been stipulated into evidence. The second page thereof downnear the bottom, uh, it refers to the parties present, November 14th, 1997 minute order. Judge Childress, DA Warkentin, DPWC PD Bonnet. I believe that stands for public defender, Judge, so. THE COURT: You can argue that but I don't know what it says. I'm looking at the document. There's nobody here to testify what it says. [DEPUTY PROSECUTOR]: Well, I ask the Court to take judicial notice of an adjudicated fact pursuant to Hawaii Rules of Evidence 201, ask the Courtor if the Court wishes, the State can check. THE COURT: You're asking me to speculate as to what those initials stand for. [DEPUTY PROSECUTOR]: Not speculate, Your Honor, but if the Court takes judicial notice if it's something easily ascertainable, then I ask the Court to do that. If the Court wishes the State to do that, the State will readily do so. THE COURT: Okay, I'm declining to do that as I indicated. I think it's your burden at the motion to prove these things, and, uh, I'm not convinced that the State has presented enough evidence to support its burden at this point on the representation issue. So if you want to go ahead and bring it up again on the hearing date, you may. But at this point, I'm notI'm going to deny your oral request for reconsideration. .... ... SoI'm sorry, I'm not making light of the State's burden. I think it's very difficult to prove prior convictions. Although it may sound simple, but it's not that easy. Id. The circuit court then continued the matter to January 17, 2006. At the January 17, 2006 hearing, the circuit stated: [A]pparently the Court made an error the last time by stating that the State has a burden of proof of establishing the conviction and also the, uh, requirement that the convictions have been with counsel appointed in that case by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. In reviewing State v. Freitas , uh, it states that the facts of his prior conviction must be established by satisfactory evidence in an ordinary sentencing proceeding, okay. In reassessing the evidence based on the procedures set forth in State v. Freitas , the Court is still not persuaded that the State has established the purported Colorado conviction by satisfactory evidence in this case. The State's submitted Exhibit 2 at the December 7th, 2005 hearing on the motion for imposition of mandatory term of imprisonment. Exhibit 2 appears to be two separate documents. The first is a three-page certified copy of what it iswhat is entitled, quote, Integrated Colorado Online Network Icon. The other document in Exhibit 2 appears to be a two-page information in, quote, 97CR329 close quote. Uh, also having considered the, uh, testimony of parole officer Une, the Court is still of the mind and concludes that the fact of defendant's prior conviction, which is the basis for the State's 706-606 point 5 motion, has not been established by satisfactory evidence. Court would note that in Freitas, among other things, there was a certified judgment of conviction. There's no certified judgment on conviction here. The Integrated Colorado Online Network document submitted, while it suggests that Mr. Heggland was convicted of a class 4 felony, uh, again there is a lack of a what the Court would consider satisfactory evidence of his conviction. Furthermore, what was submitted does not indicate that he was, uh, represented by counsel, uh, in their proceedings that are indicated in the Integrated Colorado Online Network document. The Hawaii case law is very specific that you do need to show that he was represented by counsel. So, uh, the Court again based on its reconsideration of the matters based on its incorrectly stated burden of proof on the State would find that, uh, defendantI'm sorry, State's motion for sentencing under 706-606 point 5 is denied. Id. at 380-81, 173 P.3d at 527-28. After additional colloquy, in which the prosecution again raised the issue of its burden of proof, the court reiterated its ruling. Id. at 381-82, 173 P.3d at 528-29.