Case Notes

• Jurisdiction: Hawaii,United States
• Citation: Vol. 22 No. 05
• Publication year: 2018

CASE NOTES

Supreme Court

Contracts

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Behrendt, No. SCAP-16-0000645, March 15, 2018, (Pollack, J.). This case involved the question of whether a purchaser of property that is subject to a mortgage to which the purchaser is not a party may challenge a foreclosing plaintiff's entitlement to enforce the note. Because the requirement—that a party seeking to foreclose must be entitled to enforce the note at the inception of the foreclosure action—is based on principles of standing and statutory construction rather than contractual rights, the Hawaii Supreme Court held that the purchaser may assert such a challenge. In this case, the evidence Wells Fargo presented regarding its entitlement to foreclose at the time the complaint was filed was not admissible on the grounds asserted, and therefore the Hawaii Supreme Court vacated the order granting summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Criminal

Batalona v. State, No. SCWC-15-0000569, March 19, 2018, (Pollack, J. with Nakayama, J. dissenting, with whom Rectenwald, C.J., joins). This case arose from a challenge by Albert Batalona to the order of the circuit court that denied without a hearing Batalona's post-conviction petition, which raised twenty-four grounds for relief. On appeal, the ICA held that the circuit court erred in denying without a hearing Batalona's claims in his petition relating to defense counsel's failure to challenge a prospective juror for cause and to secure at trial the attendance of a co-participant in the robbery whose out-of-court statement was admitted against Batalona. The ICA otherwise affirmed the circuit court's order denying the petition. Both the State and Batalona applied to this court for a writ of certiorari. In his certiorari application, Batalona contested the ICA's decision insofar as it affirmed the circuit court's order as to the other twenty-two grounds raised in his petition. The State's application challenged the ICA's determination that defense counsel's failure to attempt to obtain the co-participant's attendance at trial raised a colorable claim for relief. First, with regard to Batalona's certiorari application, the Hawaii Supreme Court held that grounds 8 and 10 of his petition, which asserted that defense counsel's failure to challenge the denial of Batalona's request for a copy of discovery materials resulted in the impairment of his right to present a complete defense and adversely affected his waiver of the right to testify, raised colorable claims for relief. The Hawaii Supreme Court otherwise affirmed the ICA's denial of a hearing with regard to the remaining grounds set forth in the petition except as to ground 18, which they dismissed without prejudice. Second, with respect to the State's certiorari application, the Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed the ICA's determination that ground 20(f) of Batalona's petition, which asserted that defense counsel failed to exercise a good faith effort to obtain the co-participant's attendance at trial, raised a colorable claim for relief.

Nakayama, J. with whom Recktenwald, C.J. joined, dissented. Nakayama, J. disagreed with the Majority's decision as to Grounds 8 and 10. As to Ground 8, Batalona had not demonstrated that defense counsel's actions regarding the redacted discovery materials constituted a specific error relating to his lack of skill, diligence, or judgment. With respect to Ground 10, it appeared to Nakayama, J. that defense counsel's advice to Batalona that Batalona should not testify at trial was appropriately based on a complete understanding of the nature and scope of Batalona's testimony, as well as defense counsel's knowledge of the evidence in the record. Thus, Nakayama, J. would hold that the ICA correctly affirmed the circuit court's denial of the Rule 40 Petition without a hearing on Grounds 8 and 10.

Flubacher v. State, No. SCWC-15-0000363, March 21, 2018, (Recktenwald, C.J., with Nakayama, J., dissenting separately). Robert Flubacher pled guilty to various offenses in multiple cases, and was sentenced to extended term sentences, which became final in 2003. In 2014, Flubacher filed a petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure Rule 40, arguing that his sentence was illegal because a judge, not a jury, found a relevant fact used to enhance his sentence in violation of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). The circuit court denied the petition, and the ICA affirmed. On certiorari, Flubacher argued that his extended term sentences were imposed in an illegal manner, and requested that the Hawaii Supreme Court vacate and remand for resentencing. This appeal required the Hawaii Supreme Court to revisit its...