Opinion ID: 1443938
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds was properly denied.

Text: Whether the district court should have dismissed the DUI charge on double jeopardy grounds is a question of constitutional law that we review under the right/ wrong standard. State v. Okuno, 81 Hawai`i 226, 228, 915 P.2d 700, 702 (1996) (citing State v. Toyomura, 80 Hawai`i 8, 15, 904 P.2d 893, 900 (1995)). Ontiveros argues, essentially, that the denial of his motion to dismiss the DUI charge on double jeopardy grounds was erroneous because he suffered punishment by virtue of the (1) restraint imposed by virtue of the license revocation proceeding, specifically the mandatory counseling, assessment, and education class, and (2) the de facto forfeiture resulting from the imposition of the $200.00 cost of the assessment. We considered and rejected the identical argument in Toyomura, which is dispositive of this appeal. In Toyomura, this court explained that the needs assessment and treatment provisions of HRS § 286-261(d) [8] are essentially remedial, id. at 22, 904 P.2d at 907, and are not punitive, but rather, are permissible preconditions to the prospective privilege of relicensure. Id. at 23, 904 P.2d at 908. We therefore held that subsequent conviction and punishment did not violate double jeopardy principles. Id. Okuno, 81 Hawai`i at 228-29, 915 P.2d at 702-03 (internal brackets and footnote omitted). Ontiveros asserts, however, that Toyomura does not control this appeal because: (1) Ontiveros's motion to dismiss was brought and decided before Toyomura, which cannot be applied retroactively consistent with Ontiveros's due process rights under the Hawai`i and United States Constitutions; and (2) unlike the appellant in Toyomura, Ontiveros was not merely referred for counseling and assessment, but, rather, was affirmatively required to undergo the counseling and assessment. Again, these arguments, virtually verbatim, have been considered and rejected. In Okuno, we held that retrospective application of Toyomura to cases pending when it was decided is not violative of due process and that, regardless of the wording of the Notice of Administrative Hearing Decision form, HRS § 286-261(d) does not impose a mandatory duty on an offender to subject himself or herself to the counseling and assessment. Id. at 229, 915 P.2d at 703. Because counseling and assessment, as a consequence of administrative drivers' license revocation, are not punitive, but purely remedial, conviction for DUI does not expose an offender to multiple punishments for the same offense. Id. Ontiveros's motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds was, therefore, properly denied.