Court Opinion

ID: 9897192
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:08:07.41039+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:56.134393
License: Public Domain

FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

                                            Electronically Filed
                                            Intermediate Court of Appeals
                                            CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
                                            16-OCT-2023
                                            07:59 AM
                                            Dkt. 57 OP

              IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

                      OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

                             ---O0O---

             STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Plaintiff-Appellee,
                               v.
           JOVEN JOSEPH BANARES, Defendant-Appellant

                       NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

       APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                     (CASE NO. 1PC151001819)

                         OCTOBER 16, 2023

          GINOZA, CHIEF JUDGE, LEONARD AND GUIDRY, JJ.

               OPINION OF THE COURT BY GUIDRY, J.

         Defendant-Appellant Joven Joseph Banares (Banares)

appeals from the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order

Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendant Banares's Motion
    FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

to Dismiss for Violation of Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure

Rule 9 (Rule 9 Order), entered by the Circuit Court of the First

Circuit on March 28, 2022.       Banares appeals from the portion of

the circuit court's Rule 9 Order that tolls, pursuant to Hawaii

Revised Statutes (HRS) § 706-627 (2014), the period of his

probation.    Upon careful review of the record and the briefs

submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to

the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we vacate the

circuit court's tolling of Banares's period of probation, and

the circuit court's conclusions of law (COL) 5 through 9.             We

hold that, on the record of this case, in which the circuit

court did not hear or issue a decision concerning or upon a

motion to revoke probation, the tolling provision set forth in

HRS § 706-627 does not apply to toll the period of Banares's

probation.

           Banares was charged by felony information with

Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the Third Degree, in violation of

HRS § 712-1243 (2014).      Banares pleaded no contest, and in May

2016, was sentenced to, inter alia, four years of probation.1              On

February 6, 2017, the State of Hawai‘i (State) filed a motion to

     1      The Honorable Dean E. Ochiai presided over the sentencing. The
Honorable Kevin T. Morikone presided over the February 22, 2022 hearing on
Banares's February 8, 2022 Motion to Dismiss for Violation of Hawaii Rules of
Penal Procedure Rule 9 (Rule 9 Motion to Dismiss), and issued the Rule 9
Order.
                                      2
    FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

revoke probation (Motion to Revoke), and to resentence Banares

to imprisonment, alleging that Banares violated various terms

and conditions of his probation.

           In conjunction with the State's Motion to Revoke, the

circuit court issued a bench warrant on February 7, 2017, for

Banares's arrest.     The State concedes that the bench warrant was

not served until almost five years later on January 17, 2022.

Banares turned himself in to the Honolulu Police Department.

           In February 2022, Banares filed his Rule 9 Motion to

Dismiss, requesting that his case be dismissed with prejudice.

Banares contended, pursuant to Hawai‘i Rules of Penal Procedure

(HRPP) Rule 9, that the delay of almost five years in serving

him with the bench warrant violated the requirement that

warrants "shall be executed without unnecessary delay by the

arrest of the defendant."       HRPP Rule 9(c)(3)(i); State v. Owens,

116 Hawai‘i 172, 174-75, 172 P.3d 484, 486-87 (2007).            Banares

further contended that he had remained in the jurisdiction and

was available for service between the dates of February 7, 2017,

and January 17, 2022.2      The State did not dispute that a Rule 9

violation had occurred, but objected to a dismissal of Banares's

     2      The record reflects that Banares was issued a traffic infraction
citation in case number 1DTI-21-095742, and Banares appeared in court on
September 7, 2021 via Zoom for a hearing on that matter.

                                      3
    FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

case, and further argued that the period of his probation should

be tolled pursuant to HRS § 706-627 (2014).3           The circuit court

heard the matter, and took the parties' arguments under

advisement.

             On March 28, 2022, the circuit court issued the Rule 9

Order, in which it declined to dismiss Banares's conviction,

dismissed the Motion to Revoke,4 and then concluded that

HRS § 706-627 applied to mandate the tolling of the period of

     3
             HRS § 706-627 (2014) provides that,

             Tolling of probation. (1) Upon the filing of a motion to
             revoke a probation or a motion to enlarge the conditions
             imposed thereby, the period of probation shall be tolled
             pending the hearing upon the motion and the decision of the
             court. The period of tolling shall be computed from the
             filing date of the motion through and including the filing
             date of the written decision of the court concerning the
             motion for purposes of computation of the remaining period
             of probation, if any. In the event the court fails to file
             a written decision upon the motion, the period shall be
             computed by reference to the date the court makes a
             decision upon the motion in open court. During the period
             of tolling of the probation, the defendant shall remain
             subject to all terms and conditions of the probation except
             as otherwise provided by this chapter.

             (2)   In the event the court, following hearing, refuses to
             revoke the probation or grant the requested enlargement of
             conditions thereof because the defendant's failure to
             comply therewith was excusable, the defendant may be
             granted the period of tolling of the probation for purposes
             of computation of the remaining probation, if any.

(Emphasis added.)

         4  The circuit court found, and it is not contested, that: "[t]here
is no evidence that the State made any attempt to serve the warrant at
issue[;] [t]here is no evidence that [Banares] left the jurisdiction or
attempted to evade service[;]" and "[t]here is affirmative evidence that
[Banares] was on the island of Oʻahu on August 2, 2021 when he was cited for a
traffic infraction." See Findings of Fact 10-12.
                                       4
   FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

time from the filing of the motion to revoke probation "until

the decision of the court."

         The circuit court explained its rationale for tolling

under HRS § 706-627 in its COLs 5 through 9, as follows,

         5. The plain language of HRS 706-627(1) mandates that the
         time from the filing of a motion to revoke probation "until
         the decision of the court" shall be tolled. The subsection
         goes on to specify that tolling continues until the
         decision "concerning the motion. . . ." The common meaning
         of the terms are inclusive and general and do not qualify
         the period based upon whether the decision is made on the
         merits of the motion or not. No exception is allowed for
         in subsection (1) itself and the only exception provided
         for in statute is in subsection (2).

         6. In contrast to HRS 706-627(1), HRS 706-627(2) makes a
         single exception to the tolling period mandated by
         subsection (1) solely in the situation where a court
         refuses a motion [to] revoke "because the defendant's
         failure to comply therewith was excusable." Only in such a
         situation is a court given discretion to allow a defendant
         to count time that is otherwise mandated to be tolled to
         the period of her or his probation.

          7. The nature of this Court's ruling on this matter does
         not address whether or not there was any excusable failure
         to comply with any of the conditions of probation. Thus
         the Court does not have discretion to make an exception to
         the mandatory tolling period prescribed by HRS 706-627(1).

         8. Further, nothing in Owens, supra, nor any other
         authority, provides the Court to otherwise count the tolled
         period mandated by HRS § 706-627(1) toward the time served
         in the period of probation ordered on May 5, 2017.

         9. Thus the Court does not have discretion to make an
         exception to the mandatory tolling period prescribed by HRS
         706-627(1).

         Based on the above COL, the circuit court entered the

following rulings,

               ACCORDINGLY IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendant
         Banares's Motion to Dismiss for Violation of Hawaii Rules
         of Penal Procedure Rule 9 be and the same is hereby GRANTED
         IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

                                   5
    FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

                IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to
          revoke probation filed February 6, 2017 in the above-
          captioned case is hereby dismissed.

                IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that the time from
          May 5, 2016 to and including February 6, 2017 shall accrue
          toward the period of Defendant's probation, that the time
          from February 6, 2017 to and including February 23, 2022
          shall be tolled, meaning it shall not accrue toward the
          period of Defendant's probation, and that time from
          February 23, 2022 forward shall continue to accrue toward
          the period of Defendant's probation until any future
          intervening factors occur.

                IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT as far [as] Defendant's
          motion requested that the Judgment of Conviction filed on
          May 5, 2016 or that the entire case be dismissed, those
          requests are DENIED.

          Banares raises a single point of error on appeal.            He

contends that "[t]he circuit court exceeded its authority in

applying HRS § 706-627 and tolling time. . . .         Based on the

circuit court's errors, COLs 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, as well as the

orders tolling time and continuing Banares on probation must be

reversed."   The State contends on appeal that the circuit

court's decision below should be affirmed because tolling was

either mandatory, pursuant to HRS § 706-627(1), or

discretionary, pursuant to HRS § 706-627(2).

          We review the circuit court's conclusions of law de

novo, under the right/wrong standard of review.         State v. Kido,

109 Hawai‘i 458, 461, 128 P.3d 340, 343 (2006).         We conclude the

circuit court erred in that portion of the Rule 9 Order that

applies HRS § 706-627 to toll the time of Banares's probation

                                    6
    FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

from February 6, 2017, to and including February 23, 2022.

Thus, the circuit court's COLs 5 through 9 are wrong.

           We begin by examining the plain language of HRS § 706-

627.   State v. Borge, 152 Hawai‘i 458, 464, 526 P.3d 435, 441

(2023) ("[I]mplicit in the task of statutory construction is our

foremost obligation to ascertain and give effect to the

intention of the legislature, which is to be obtained primarily

from the language contained in the statute itself.") (quoting

Ito v. Invs. Equity Life Holding Co., 135 Hawai‘i 49, 61, 346

P.3d 118, 130 (2015)).

           HRS § 706-627 applies to toll a period of probation

pending "the hearing upon the motion [to revoke probation] and

the decision of the court."    HRS § 706-627(1) (emphasis added).

The period of tolling is calculated in relation to the time in

which the circuit court issues its written "decision"

"concerning the motion," or, absent a written decision,

announces its "decision upon the motion" in open court.       Id.

The record reflects that there is no such decision in this case.

The circuit court did not hear or issue a decision on the Motion

to Revoke due to the State's clear failure to serve the bench

warrant.

           Indeed, due to the State's Rule 9 violation, the

circuit court dismissed the State's Motion to Revoke without

                                  7
   FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

reaching any of the issues raised or requests made therein.         As

the circuit court observed in COL 7, the Rule 9 Order dismissing

the Motion to Revoke foreclosed its ability to address "whether

or not there was any excusable failure to comply with any of the

conditions of probation."   Because the circuit court did not in

this case hear or issue a "decision" "concerning [or upon] the

motion [to revoke]," the tolling provision set forth in HRS §

706-627 cannot apply to toll the period of Banares's probation.

         For the foregoing reasons, we vacate that portion of

the Rule 9 Order that applies HRS § 706-627 to toll the time of

Banares's probation from February 6, 2017, to and including

February 23, 2022, and COLs 5 through 9, and we remand for

further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

On the briefs:
                                     /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza
Taryn R. Tomasa,                     Chief Judge
Deputy Public Defender,
for Defendant-Appellant.             /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
                                     Associate Judge
Loren J. Thomas,
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,         /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
City and County of Honolulu,         Associate Judge
for Plaintiff-Appellee.

                                 8