Court Opinion

ID: 9404647
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-23 18:04:09.773977+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:15.889179
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

                                                   Electronically Filed
                                                   Intermediate Court of Appeals
                                                   CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
                                                   23-JUN-2023
                                                   07:48 AM
                                                   Dkt. 53 SO

                             NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

                  IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

                          OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

            JOHN CLINTON EASTERWOOD, Petitioner-Appellant,
                                   v.
                 STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent-Appellee

          APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                     (S.P.P. NO. 1CPN-XX-XXXXXXX)

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

          Petitioner-Appellant John Clinton Easterwood
(Easterwood) appeals from the "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of
Law and Order Denying Petitioner Easterwood's Hawai#i Rules of
Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 40 Petition for Post-Conviction
Relief" (Order Denying Rule 40 Petition) entered on November 4,
2021, by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court).1
          Easterwood's HRPP Rule 40 Petition sought relief from
his no contest plea and sentence in Criminal No. 1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX
(criminal case).2 In the criminal case, Easterwood plead no

      1
         The Honorable James S. Kawashima presided in the evidentiary hearing
on the HRPP Rule 40 Petition and issued the Order Denying Rule 40 Petition.
      2
          The Honorable Todd W. Eddins presided in the criminal case.
  NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

contest to Unauthorized Entry into Motor Vehicle in the First
Degree (count 1), Assault Against a Law Enforcement Officer in
the First Degree (count 2), and Resisting Arrest (count 4).                 He
was sentenced to five-year terms of imprisonment for counts 1 and
2, and one-year of imprisonment for count 4, with the sentences
to run concurrently.
            Easterwood's HRPP Rule 40 Petition asserts three
grounds: he was told by his criminal case counsel, Jason Burks
(Burks), that Burks spoke with the trial judge who agreed to
sentence Easterwood to probation, not prison, in return for a
guilty plea; the judge relied on police action unrelated to
Easterwood's case in his reasoning for a maximum sentence; and
Burks mislead Easterwood into believing the judge had agreed to
sentence Easterwood to probation in return for a guilty plea.                In
an order issued on September 4, 2020, the Circuit Court
determined that Easterwood's petition presented a colorable claim
for ineffective assistance of counsel for which a hearing would
be held, but that his other assertions did not raise valid claims
warranting a hearing.3
          The Circuit Court held an evidentiary hearing on
Easterwood's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. At the
HRPP Rule 40 hearing, the Circuit Court heard testimony from
Easterwood and Burks. The Circuit Court then issued its Order
Denying Rule 40 Petition. This appeal follows.
            On appeal, Easterwood contends that "[t]he Circuit
Court erred when it found Easterwood non-credible, found Burks
credible, concluded that [Easterwood's] claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel was unfounded, and ordered that no relief
would be granted under HRPP Rule 40." Easterwood challenges: the
Circuit Court's findings of fact (FOF) 13, 14, and 15, which
relate to the Circuit Court's assessment of Easterwood's

     3
         The Honorable Todd W. Eddins issued the September 4, 2020 order.

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

credibility; FOFs 16(b), (d), (e), and (f), relating to the
Circuit Court's assessment of Burks' credibility as to specified
facts; FOFs 17 and 18; and conclusions of law (COL) 4, 8, 9, and
12.
          Upon careful consideration of the arguments by the
parties, the legal authorities cited, and the record, we resolve
Easterwood's appeal as set forth below and affirm.
          The Hawai#i Supreme Court has stated that:
          "The proper standard for claims of ineffective assistance of
          counsel on appeal is whether, 'viewed as a whole, the
          assistance provided was within the range of competence
          demanded of attorneys in criminal cases.'" State v. DeLeon,
          131 Hawai#i 463, 479, 319 P.3d 382, 398 (2014) (quoting Dan
          v. State, 76 Hawai#i 423, 427, 879 P.2d 528, 532 (1994)).

                The defendant has the burden of establishing
                ineffective assistance of counsel and must meet
                the following two-part test: 1) that there were
                specific errors or omissions reflecting
                counsel's lack of skill, judgment, or diligence;
                and 2) that such errors or omissions resulted in
                either the withdrawal or substantial impairment
                of a potentially meritorious defense.

Araiza v. State, 149 Hawai#i 7, 14, 481 P.3d 14, 21 (2021)
(citations omitted).
          The challenged findings and conclusions state as
follows:
                             FINDINGS OF FACT
          13.   As finder of fact, the Court is unconvinced by
                Easterwood's contention that he only changed his pleas
                because he was promised probation. Instead, it appears
                more likely that denial of the very existence of any
                agreement with the state whatsoever, however
                non-credible such denial may be, is herein offered
                simply to bolster the claims supporting the instant
                petition.
          14.   Among the reasons why Easterwood's denial of any
                agreement with the state is non-credible, the Court
                notes Easterwood's own sworn adoption of the change of
                plea form K and the plain understanding of the word
                "agreement."
          15.   As an issue of fact, Easterwood's non-credible denial
                actually refutes his assertion that he only changed
                his pleas because he was promised probation. That
                Easterwood's petition should depend to such a degree
                upon so implausible a denial suggests that the
                petition itself lacks any other factual support.

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

        16.     The Court does find credible the testimony from Jason
                Burks ("Burks"), specifically:
                . . .
                b.      That Burks never told Defendant that probation
                        would be anything other than a possibility;

                . . .
                d.      That Burks told Easterwood, absent an agreement
                        with the State under which the Court could bind
                        itself under HRPP Rule 11, "nothing is set in
                        stone";
                e.      That Burks himself never personally promised
                        probation, but told Easterwood that he might
                        have a "decent shot" at probation;
                f.      That Burks did explain to Easterwood that the
                        likelihood of receiving probation would depend
                        on Easterwood taking responsibility for his
                        actions, and further that Easterwood's failure
                        to take responsibility would also carry its own
                        consequences[.]

                . . .
        17.     Easterwood's current position, that he changed his
                pleas only because he believed he had an enforceable
                contract guaranteeing him two or four years probation,
                has no factual support anywhere else in the record,
                and is as a matter of fact is [sic] strongly refuted
                by the evidence that has been adduced herein.

        18.     Finally, whatever representations may have been made,
                the Court does not find it credible that someone with
                Easterwood's criminal history (as reflected in the
                bail and pre-sentence reports) could reasonably expect
                a guarantee of probation for punching a uniformed
                police officer without provocation.

                              CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
        . . .

        4.      As adduced herein, Easterwood's pleas were fully
                informed and entered knowingly, intelligently and
                voluntarily. Easterwood's summary claims to the
                contrary in his supplement filed on July 4, 2021, are
                patently frivolous and without trace of support in the
                record.
        . . .
        8.      The defense of involuntary intoxication under H.R.S. §
                702-230(2) could not be potentially meritorious, given
                that its sole basis is Easterwood's speculation
                regarding a "cigarette laced with LSD," absent any
                corroborative evidence whatsoever.

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

          9.      Absent any trace of support for any legally cognizable
                  defense that could also have been potentially
                  meritorious, Easterwood's complaint of ineffective
                  assistance of counsel remains unfounded.
          . . .

          12.     Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the Court
                  finds no basis by which relief can be granted under
                  HRPP Rule 40. Nothing presented or adduced suggests
                  that Easterwood's sentence was unconstitutional,
                  without jurisdiction or in any manner illegal.

          Easterwood does not set out particular arguments in
challenging the specified findings and conclusions of the Circuit
Court. Rather, he makes generalized arguments. His challenge to
FOFs 13, 14, 15, and 16(b), (d), (e), and (f), are based on his
assertion that his testimony was credible and the Circuit Court
clearly erred in its assessment of Easterwood and Burks'
respective credibility at the HRPP Rule 40 hearing. Easterwood's
challenge to FOFs 17 and 18 also contests the Circuit Court's
credibility assessments and its weighing of the evidence. All of
these issues are within the province of the Circuit Court and
will not be disturbed on appeal. State v. Jenkins, 93 Hawai#i
87, 101, 997 P.2d 13, 27 (2000) ("[I]t is well-settled that an
appellate court will not pass upon issues dependent upon the
credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence; this is
the province of the [trier of fact].") (citations omitted)
(alterations in original); State v. Aplaca, 96 Hawai#i 17, 23, 25
P.3d 792, 798 (2001) (citations omitted).
          Additionally, given that the challenged findings will
not be disturbed and that the Circuit Court's unchallenged
findings are binding on appeal, Easterwood's challenge to COLs 4,
8, 9, and 12 are without merit. The findings by the Circuit
Court and the record in this case support COLs 4, 8, 9, and 12,
and Easterwood fails to show that they were wrong.
          Given the above, Easterwood did not establish his claim
of ineffective assistance of counsel and the Circuit Court did
not err in denying his HRPP Rule 40 Petition.

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

          Therefore, the "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law
and Order Denying Petitioner Easterwood's [HRPP] Rule 40 Petition
for Post-Conviction Relief," filed on November 4, 2021, by the
Circuit Court of the First Circuit, is affirmed.
          DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 23, 2023.

On the briefs:                        /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza
                                      Chief Judge
William K. Li,
for Petitioner-Appellant              /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
                                      Associate Judge
Loren J. Thomas,
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,          /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
for Respondent-Appellee               Associate Judge

                                  6