Court Opinion

ID: 9946349
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-29 18:06:51.608518+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:22.586186
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

                                                 Electronically Filed
                                                 Intermediate Court of Appeals
                                                 CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
                                                 29-FEB-2024
                                                 07:46 AM
                                                 Dkt. 95 SO

                          NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

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

             SHELDON COLLIER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
             STATE OF HAWAI#I, Defendant-Appellee, and
                JOHN DOES 1-5, Defendants-Appellees

         APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                      (CIVIL NO. 1CC171000406)

                    SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
  (By: Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Hiraoka and Wadsworth, JJ.)

           Plaintiff-Appellant Sheldon Collier (Collier) appeals

from the October 3, 2019 Judgment (Judgment) entered by the

Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court) in favor of

Defendant-Appellee State of Hawai<i (State).1         Collier also

challenges the Circuit Court's July 10, 2019 Findings of Fact

[(FOFs)], Conclusions of Law [(COLs)] and Order; Notice of Entry

(FOFs, COLs, and Order).

           Collier raises six points of error on appeal,

contending that:    (1) the FOFs are inadequate because they did

     1
           The Honorable James H. Ashford presided.
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

not include facts pertinent to his Complaint or his argument at

trial; (2) COL 4 is incorrect because the Department of Public

Safety (DPS) "did not properly follow [Hawaii Revised Statutes

(HRS) § 706-]668.5 for 20 years (1986 to December 31, 2004)," and

because DPS's "new practice is retroactive without any procedural

safeguards to prevent what promised to be a high risk of over

detention"; (3) COL 5 is incorrect because the manner in which

DPS recalculated Collier's release date was a "fail[ure] to apply

reasonable safety precautions to avoid an elevated foreseeable
risk of over detention"; (4) COL 6 is incorrect because Collier

was overdetained and the "delay was the result of [DPS's]

negligence"; (5) COL 7 is incorrect because Collier "did prove he

was overdetained by getting a Second Amended Judgment"; and (6)

the FOFs, COLs, and Order and Judgment are incorrect because the

FOFs do not "address any of the issues of the negligence claimed"

and because the COLs "are infirm and being supported by

inadequate findings as to [Collier's] claim of negligence."

          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 by the parties, we

resolve Collier's points of error as follows:

          (1)   Collier argues that the Circuit Court failed to

make FOFs necessary to address his negligence claims.           Collier

also argues that the inadequate FOFs rendered the COLs infirm and

led to an erroneous judgment.
                We have held that "[w]here an appellant alleges that
          the trial court failed to make adequate findings of fact,

                                    2
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

          the appellate court will examine all the findings, as made,
          to determine whether they are (1) supported by the evidence;
          and (2) sufficiently comprehensive and pertinent to the
          issues in the case to form a basis for the conclusions of
          law. If those findings include sufficient subsidiary facts
          to disclose to the reviewing court the steps by which the
          lower court reached its ultimate conclusion on each factual
          issue, then the findings are adequate."

State v. Ramos-Saunders, 135 Hawai<i 299, 304, 349 P.3d 406, 411

(App. 2015) (citation omitted; emphasis added).

          Collier argues that his claims that he was overdetained

due to the State's negligence and that precautionary measures

would have prevented his overdetention were not addressed in the
FOFs.

          The Circuit Court's FOFs include, inter alia, that:

DPS modified its sentencing practices to conform to HRS § 706-

668.5(1) "on or about January 1, 2005"; the Amended Judgment

sentencing Collier to five years imprisonment did not state "that

the terms were to run concurrently with any other sentence";

Collier, while released on parole, violated the terms of parole,

and HPA informed Collier that his release date was April 18,

2009; DPS employee Nettie Arias (Arias) then recalculated

Collier's sentence in February of 2008 pursuant to DPS Policy

No.: COR.05.05, which brought DPS in conformity with HRS § 706-

668.5(1); Arias notified Collier that his original release date

was extended from April 18, 2009, to July 31, 2012; Collier

testified that the change was devastating and that he told Arias

the recalculation was a mistake; Collier's then-counsel filed the

Motion to Amend Judgment, resulting in the Second Amended

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

Judgment, which ordered Collier's sentences "to be served

concurrently"; and DPS released Collier the next day.

          The FOFs are supported by substantial evidence in the

record, are pertinent to the issues concerning Collier's alleged

overdetention, and include sufficient facts to allow this court

to review the Circuit Court's ultimate conclusion.      Thus, we

conclude that Collier's argument is without merit.

          (2)   Collier argues that COLs 4-7 are incorrect because

the State did not prevent the foreseeable harm of overdetainment
that came with his recalculated release date.

          Based upon the record before us and, inter alia, the

version of HRS § 706-668.5(1) that was in effect in February of

2008, we conclude that the Circuit Court did not err in

concluding that Collier was not overdetained and did not

otherwise err in COLs 4-7.    Arias correctly recalculated

Collier's release date based on the terms of the Amended Judgment

and the version of HRS § 706-668.5(1) in effect at the time.       See

Simeona v. Dydasco, CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2015 WL 1400952, *1 (Haw.

App. March 27, 2015) (SDO); Alston v. Read, 663 F.3d 1094 (9th

Cir. 2011).   Collier was released the day after the Second

Amended Judgment was entered.    Because Collier was not

overdetained, his claim of negligence and any other claims based

on overdetention, fail.

                                  4
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

          For these reasons, the Circuit Court's October 3, 2019

Judgment is affirmed.

          DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, February 29, 2024.

On the briefs:                        /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
                                      Acting Chief Judge
Jack Schweigert,
for Plaintiff-Appellant.              /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
                                      Associate Judge
Caron M. Inagaki,
Kendall J. Moser,                     /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
William K. Awong,                     Associate Judge
Deputy Attorneys General,
State of Hawai#i,
for Defendant-Appellee.

                                  5