 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Barnslater1/23/2003
Plaintiff-appellant State of Hawaii (the prosecution) appeals from the order granting defendant-appellee Wayne Barnslater's (Defendant's) motion to dismiss charges filed in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, the Honorable Sandra A. Simms presiding. On appeal, the prosecution argues that the circuit court abused its discretion when it exercised its inherent powers to administer justice and dismissed the charges against Defendant. On the facts of this case, we agree and, therefore, vacate the order of dismissal and remand this case for further proceedings.
I. BACKGROUND
On November 25, 1998, Defendant pled guilty to three charges: (1) habitually driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs, in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) §§ 291-4.4(a)(1) and -4.4(a)(2) (1995); (2) driving without a license (DWOL), in violation of HRS § 286-102 (1993); and (3) failure to stop at a stop sign, in violation of HRS § 291C-63(b) (1993). At the time Defendant was to enter his plea, he was serving a term of probation in Illinois on unrelated charges. Thus, the prosecution extradited him in order to ensure his presence in Hawaii, incurring travel expenses and other related costs. After entering his plea, Defendant was returned to Illinois and subsequently sentenced to a twelve-year term of imprisonment on the unrelated charges.
Sentencing on the Hawaii charges was originally scheduled for March 16, 1999, but was repeatedly postponed for reasons linked to the status of the Illinois criminal proceedings. It is undisputed that the prosecution acted diligently in its attempt to proceed with sentencing.
On February 23, 2001, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the charges against him, pursuant to HRS § 603-21.9 (1993), which restates the court's inherent powers doctrine, and Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 47, the general motions rule. Defendant maintained that the interests of justice and judicial economy would be furthered by a dismissal of the charges against him based on the following factors: (1) the three charges to which he had pled guilty consisted of the lowest grade of felony, a misdemeanor, and a traffic violation; (2) the length of time the Hawaii case had been pending; (3) his conviction and sentence in Illinois; and (4) the amount of money the State of Hawaii would expend in order to extradite him for sentencing, return him to Illinois to complete his term of imprisonment, and, if necessary, bring him back to serve the Hawaii sentence.
In opposition, the prosecution argued that Defendant had already pled guilty to the charges and that the delay in sentencing had been occasioned by the criminal proceedings in Illinois and Defendant's subsequent incarceration there. The prosecution suggested that, in lieu of a dismissal, the proper remedy would be to "bench warrant the efendant and allow the State to take whatever steps it can in order to secure his presence in this jurisdiction, and that if for some reason he is released in Illinois and does return to this jurisdiction, the State can then pick him up and have him be sentenced in this case." The prosecution urged the court to deny the motion on the basis that " efendant should not be rewarded and be able to avoid the consequences of this case simply because he is serving time in Cook County[, Illinois,] for other felonies that are unrelated to this case."
After hearing the arguments of the parties, the circuit court acknowledged that the difficulties that had arisen with regard to sentencing Defendant were beyond the control of the parties. The court also indicated that, on the basis of the presentence investigation report, there was a strong likelihood
Page 1 2 3 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|