Court Opinion

ID: 9595503
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:41:09.792877+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:07:38.674652
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING OPINION OF
KIDWELL, J.
The effect of the majority opinion in this case is to consider and resolve the question which Appellant’s counsel faded to present in the first appeal. I agree with the majority’s interpretation of HRS § 727-24. The only issue remaining is whether, before considering the question, this court should have afforded an opportunity for Appellant’s appointed counsel to brief and argue Appellant’s contentions, in order to provide Appellant with advocacy of her position equal to that which a nonindigent defendant enjoys. Here the argument for Appellant’s interpretation of HRS § 727-24 was placed forcefully before this court by the dissent in Kimball. Under these circumstances, I consider that Appellant has not been deprived of the substance of her constitutional right to have the assistance of counsel for her defense under the rationale of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Entsminger v. Iowa, 386 U.S. 748 (1967). I therefore concur in the disposition made of this appeal by the majority opinion.