Case Notes

• Publication year: 2016

CASE NOTES

Supreme Court

Criminal

State v. Godines, SCWC-No. 14-0000384, August 5, 2016 (Recktenwald, C.J.). In her application, Petitioner presented three questions: (1) Whether the [ICA] gravely erred when it misinterpreted Hawaii Revised Statutes § 431:10C-117(a)(6), then misapplied it to the ruling in this matter in its Summary Disposition Order of December 21, 2015; (2) Whether the [ICA] gravely erred under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 602-59 when it denied Petitioner the required waiver to facilitate the procurement of vital written transcripts based upon the finding that the violation of offense "constitutes a traffic infraction" as defined by Haw. Rev. Stat. § 291D and supporting case law, then turned and ruled in favor of Respondent based upon the complete opposite finding that the violation or offense "not be deemed . . . a traffic infraction as defined by chapter 291D"; and (3) Whether the ICA gravely erred when it failed to surmise that the lower court should have disposed of this case on May 14, 2013 had it complied with Haw. Rev. Stat. § 805-13, the proper procedure for violations under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 431:10C-104, and that other contributing factors, including the requirement of actual operation of a motor vehicle prior to being cited for said moving violation, would deem Haw. Rev. Stat. § 291D the proper application in this matter. In short, Petitioner argued that the ICA (1) incorrectly concluded that Haw. Rev. Stat. Ch. 291D did not apply to her case and (2) improperly denied her requests to waive transcript costs. The Hawaii Supreme Court concluded that the ICA correctly determined that Haw. Rev. Stat. Ch. 291D did not apply to Petitioner's case, since Haw. Rev. Stat. § 431:10C-117 clearly states that first time violations of Haw. Rev. Stat. § 431:10C-104 "shall not be deemed to be a traffic infraction as defined by chapter 291D." Haw. Rev. Stat. § 431:10C-117(a)(6). However, the ICA did err in denying Petitioner's request for transcript costs on the basis that she was not a "criminal defendant" under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 802-7. Although the punishment of a first time violation of Haw. Rev. Stat. § 431:10C-104 does not include imprisonment, Haw. Rev. Stat. § 431:10C-104 cases are adjudicated pursuant to criminal procedure in a criminal proceeding. Further, the legislature sought to impose harsher penalties for Haw. Rev. Stat. § 431:10C-104, as evidenced by the fact that multiple convictions under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 431:10C-104 authorize...