Opinion ID: 2625290
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Adjudication Giving Rise to the Present Appeal

Text: On December 1, 2000, the prosecution filed a petition alleging that Minor had committed the offense of promoting a detrimental drug in the third degree. The allegations stemmed from an October 27, 2000 incident when Minor's backpack was searched by his school's vice principal and marijuana was discovered. Prior to trial, Minor moved to suppress what he claimed was illegally seized evidence. At a hearing on January 24, 2001, the family court [1] concluded that the search was supported by reasonable suspicion and denied Minor's motion to suppress. Thereafter, Minor consented to a trial on stipulated facts at the conclusion of which the family court ruled as follows: [T]he evidence presented in this case by the prosecution establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that [Minor] did ... commit a law violation in that he did knowingly possess marijuana in an amount, some amount, not a specified amount. But that would be sufficient to establish that he did commit the offense of promoting a detrimental drug in the third degree, which is in violation of ... [HRS § 712-1249(1) ]. Since the offense was committed while he was under the age of 18, [Minor] comes within the jurisdiction of this Family Court. And I, at this time, find that he did commit a law violation and is, therefore, subject to disposition for such law violation by the Family Court, Second Circuit. On January 25, 2001, the family court filed a Decree re: Modification and Change of Law Violations Decree [hereinafter, the challenged Decree], which provided that: (1) all prior orders relative to Minor were to remain unmodified and (2) Minor was to return to family court for a disposition hearing scheduled for February 7, 2001. On January 29, 2001, Minor filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Adjudication and Stay of Mittimus. Following a hearing held on February 5, 2001, the motion for reconsideration was denied; [2] the alternative motion to stay mittimus was continued pending the February 7, 2001 disposition hearing scheduled before the Honorable Geronimo Valdriz, Jr. At the disposition hearing, the prosecution noted that a previous mittimus had issued against Minor and that it had been stayed on condition that he not be adjudicated as to any further law violations. The prosecution maintained that, in light of the oral adjudication of guilt, it was appropriate for mittimus to issue and for Minor to be sent to the HYCF. Minor, on the other hand, emphasized that he had recently begun participating in an Individualized Education Program and that, in light of the progress he was making, mittimus should be stayed so that he could continue his participation. Minor also noted that he intended to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress evidence and renewed the request that mittimus be stayed pending the outcome of the appeal. The prosecution urged the family court to reject Minor's argument on the ground that mittimuses could be stayed everyday by filing an appeal. On the same day, at the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Valdriz filed a Decree Re: Modification and Change of Law Violations Decree, ordering that Minor be committed to the Executive Director of the Office of Youth Services managing and controlling the [HYCF], located at Kailua, Oahu for an indeterminate period not to exceed 120 days[,] but stayed mittimus on condition that Minor not be adjudicated for any further law violations. On March 1, 2001, Minor filed an amended notice of appeal from the Orders filed January 25, 2001, and February 13, 2001, adjudicating him as a law violator, and denying his motion for reconsideration. On September 11, 2001after Minor had filed his opening brief, but before the prosecution filed its answer,the prosecution moved to dismiss the appeal for want of appellate jurisdiction. In its memorandum in support of the motion, the prosecution argued that no original decree of adjudication existed and that, therefore, the challenged Decree cannot constitute the judgment appealed from, because it is a legal nullity, as it does not adjudicate [Minor] as a law violator, and it merely seeks to modify a non-existent adjudication decree. The prosecution also contended that the order denying Minor's motion for reconsideration was not appealable as no decree of adjudication exists, [and, therefore,] any reconsideration of a non-existent decree is likewise ineffective. Alternatively, the prosecution moved to have the case temporarily remanded to the family court for entry of a properly worded adjudication order as well as entry of statutorily mandated findings of fact (FOFs) and conclusions of law (COLs). [3] On December 4, 2001, after briefing by the parties was completed, this court filed an order denying the prosecution's motion without prejudice to the court considering the issues as presented in the answering brief.