Court Opinion

ID: 9397641
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-25 19:11:06.612735+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:26.597463
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

                                                  Electronically Filed
                                                  Intermediate Court of Appeals
                                                  CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
                                                  25-MAY-2023
                                                  08:13 AM
                                                  Dkt. 61 SO

                NOS. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX and CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

                  IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
                         OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

                              CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
                  STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Plaintiff-Appellee,
                                     v.
                   DAVID M. MAILE, Defendant-Appellant
                        (CASE NO. 2DCW-XX-XXXXXXX)

                                     AND

                              CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
                  STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Plaintiff-Appellee,
                                     v.
                   DAVID M. MAILE, Defendant-Appellant
                        (CASE NO. 2DCW-XX-XXXXXXX)

       APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT
                         WAILUKU DIVISION

                        SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
       (By:     Ginoza, Chief Judge, Hiraoka and Nakasone, JJ.)

              In this consolidated appeal,1 Defendant-Appellant David
M. Maile (Maile) appeals from two separate Judgments and Notices

      1     Maile filed Notices of Appeal on May 17, 2021 in CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
and CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX. This court consolidated the appeals under CAAP-21-
0000329 on June 29, 2021.
   NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

of Entry of Judgment in underlying Case No. 2DCW-XX-XXXXXXX and
Case No. 2DCW-XX-XXXXXXX, both filed and entered on May 14, 2021
by the District Court of the Second Circuit (District Court).2
After separate bench trials in each case, Maile was convicted of
Criminal Contempt of Court (Contempt of Court) in violation of
Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 710-1077(1)(g).3
            Maile raises three points of error on appeal as to
each underlying conviction, contending that the District Court
erred by: (1) convicting Maile of Contempt of Court due to
insufficient evidence; (2) denying Maile's Motions to Dismiss
because his conviction for a separate Contempt of Court charge
required joinder of his Contempt of Court charges in the
underlying cases and constituted double jeopardy; and (3)
denying Maile's Motions to Dismiss because the complaints failed
to state an offense as to the community service work (CSW) he
was required to do or the deadline to do the CSW and to pay
fines/fees.
            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 resolve
Maile's points of error as follows, and reverse.
            On March 29, 2021, the Plaintiff-Appellee State of
Hawai‘i (State) filed three criminal complaints against Maile,
charging him with Contempt of Court arising from failing to
appear at a compliance hearing before the District Court.             Maile

      2     The Honorable Christopher M. Dunn presided over the trial and
signed the May 14, 2021 Judgment and Notice of Entry of Judgment.
      3     HRS § 710-1077(1)(g) (2014) states in pertinent part, "(1) A
person commits the offense of criminal contempt of court if: . . . (g) The
person knowingly disobeys or resists the process, injunction, or other
mandate of a court[.]"
                                      2
   NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

pled no contest to the first complaint.          The second complaint,
filed in Case No. 2DCW-XX-XXXXXXX, alleged that, on March 16,
2021, Maile failed to appear in the District Court for proof of
compliance of CSW and "fail[ed] to complete twenty (20) hours of
[CSW] arising from his conviction for Theft in the Fourth Degree
in case number 2DCW-XX-XXXXXXX . . . ."          The third complaint,
filed in Case No. 2DCW-XX-XXXXXXX, alleged that, on March 16,
2021, Maile failed to appear in the District Court for proof of
compliance of fines and "fail[ed] to complete payment of $220.00
in fines and fees arising from his conviction for Theft in the
Fourth Degree in case number 2DCW-XX-XXXXXXX . . . . "
            On April 1, 2021, Maile filed his Motions to Dismiss
the second and third complaints.          Following a hearing on April
16, 2021, the District Court denied the Motions to Dismiss and
ordered Maile to appear for a jury-waived trial in both cases.4
            Trial commenced on May 14, 2021.        In Case No. 2DCW-21-
0000592, the parties stipulated to identification and notice of
Maile's March 16, 2021 court date.         The State admitted into
evidence, with no objection from Maile, the following exhibits:
(1) Return of Service on Bench Warrant in Maile's theft case;
(2) Order and Notice of Entry of Order in Maile's theft case;
(3) Bench Warrant ordered on March 16, 2021 in Maile's theft
case; (4) Minutes for Maile's theft case.          Through these
exhibits, the State sought to demonstrate that "on March 16th,
2021 [Maile] failed to appear before this court as ordered by
the bench warrant served on [Maile] [sic] February 11th, 2021."
Maile testified in his defense.

      4     The Honorable Blaine J. Kobayashi presided over the April 16,
2021 hearing.

                                      3
   NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

             The District Court found Maile guilty of Contempt of
Court in Case No. 2DCW-XX-XXXXXXX.         The District Court then
conducted the trial for Case No. 2DCW-XX-XXXXXXX, with the
parties stipulating to the same type of evidence that was
admitted in Case No. 2DCW-XX-XXXXXXX.         The District Court found
Maile guilty of Contempt of Court in Case No. 2DCW-XX-XXXXXXX.5
This timely appeal followed.
             (1) Maile contends that the District Court erred in
convicting Maile of Contempt of Court in both Case Nos. 2DCW-21-
0000592 and 2DCW-XX-XXXXXXX because there was insufficient
evidence to support the convictions.         The State concedes that
there was insufficient evidence to support Maile's convictions
and recommends reversal of Maile's convictions.
             We have considered the State's concession of error,
and upon our review of the record, determine that the concession
is supported by the record and the law.          See State v.
Eduwensuyi, 141 Hawai‘i 328, 337, 409 P.3d 732, 741 (2018) ("A
prosecutor's confession, although not binding on an appellate
court, is 'entitled to great weight.'") (internal citation
omitted)).    We hold that there was insufficient evidence to
support Maile's convictions.       Here, the complaints in both cases
charged Maile with failing to comply with court orders in the
underlying judgments for the theft convictions, but as the State
notes, those judgments were not introduced into evidence.
             In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of
evidence, "evidence adduced in the trial court must be
considered in the strongest light for the prosecution."             State
v. Williams, 149 Hawai‘i 381, 392, 491 P.3d 592, 603 (2021)

      5     In its Answering Brief, the State notes that: "[a] review of the
trial transcript and the State's Exhibits shows that the Judgment of
Conviction and Sentence" for the underlying theft cases in Case Nos. 2DCW-19-
0001531 and 2DCW-XX-XXXXXXX "were not introduced into evidence."
                                      4
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(internal brackets omitted) (quoting State v. Kalaola, 124
Hawai‘i 43, 49, 237 P.3d 1109, 1115 (2010)).     On appeal, the test

is "whether there was substantial evidence to support the
conclusion of the trier of fact." Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted) (quoting Kalaola, 124 Hawai‘i at 49, 237 P.3d at 1115).

          Pursuant to HRS § 710-1077(1)(g), "(1) A person
commits the offense of criminal contempt of court if: . . . (g)
The person knowingly disobeys or resists the process,
injunction, or other mandate of a court[.]" (emphasis added).
Under the statute, the State had to prove that (1) Maile failed
to appear in court, and (2) knowingly disobeyed or resisted
completing his sentence.   As to "knowingly disobeying or
resisting" his sentence, the record reflects that in Case No.
2DCW-XX-XXXXXXX, Maile was charged with failure to complete
twenty hours of CSW, and in Case No. 2DCW-XX-XXXXXXX, failure to
pay the $220 fine in his theft cases.     See id.   However, the
trial transcript and the State's exhibits reflect that, while
the defense's stipulation and the State's exhibits admitted at
trial established identity and notice of the March 16, 2021
hearing, the admitted evidence did not establish that Maile was
informed of his sentence by the court to perform CSW and to pay
a fine and fees from his sentence for his theft convictions.
Thus, there was insufficient evidence to support the element
that Maile "knowingly disobeyed or resisted . . . a mandate by
the court" under HRS § 710-1077(1)(g).     See HRS § 710-
1077(1)(g); Williams, 124 Hawai‘i at 392, 237 P.3d at 603.      Thus,

we conclude that the District Court erred, as there was a lack
of substantial evidence to support Maile's convictions, and that
his convictions must be reversed.     See id.
          (2) Based on the above, it is not necessary to address
Maile's remaining points of error.

                                  5
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

          For the foregoing reasons, we reverse both of the
Judgments and Notices of Entry of Judgment filed and entered on
May 14, 2021, by the District Court of the Second Circuit.
          DATED:   Honolulu, Hawai‘i, May 25, 2023.
On the briefs:
                                      /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza
Phyllis J. Hironaka,                  Chief Judge
Deputy Public Defender,
for Defendant-Appellant.              /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
                                      Associate Judge
Renee Ishikawa Delizo,
Deputy Attorney General,              /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
County of Maui,                       Associate Judge
for Plaintiff-Appellee.

                                  6