State v. Galo5/21/2003
492, 974 P.2d 1082 (App. 1999), that sufficient foundation was laid that Galo had been previously convicted of burglary and was subject to sentencing as a repeat offender. In filing its Motion for Sentencing of Repeat Offender, Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawaii (the State) based its motion on, among other items, "all the records and files herein, . . . and such evidence as may be adduced at the hearing on this motion."
The records and files in this case included the following documents: (1) the Indictment against "Pua Galo"; (2) the Grand Jury Bench Warrant served on "Pua Galo" as a result of the Indictment; and (3) the "State of Hawaii OBTS/CCH Arrest Report" (Arrest Report) for "Galo, Kanana Pua aka Pua[,]" which includes detailed information about Galo, such as his State of Hawaii identification number (SID), social security number, date of birth, age, height, weight, hair color, eye color, birthplace, as well as a photograph of Galo.
At the hearing on the State's Motion for Sentencing of Repeat Offender, which was heard at the same time as the State's Motion for Extended Term of Imprisonment, the State offered into evidence certified copies of the following: (1) the Complaint filed on July 11, 1994 in Cr. No. 94-1477 against "Kanana Pua Galo[,]" charging him with Burglary in the First Degree; (2) the Order Appointing Counsel for "Kanana Pua Galo" in Cr. No. 94-1477, filed on July 28, 1994; (3) the jury verdict returned in open court on June 22, 1995, finding "Kanana Pua Galo" guilty as charged of Burglary in the First Degree; (4) the September 25, 1995 Judgment convicting "Kanana Pua Galo" of, and sentencing him for, Burglary in the First Degree; and (5) two Certificates of Presentence Detention filed on July 10, 1995 and August 16, 1995, respectively, certifying that "Kanana Pua Galo," who had an SID that was identical to the SID listed for Galo in the Arrest Report, had been detained for a total of 455 days as of his date of sentence in Cr. No. 94-1477. Additionally, Galo's probation officer testified that he was supervising Galo with respect to a Robbery in the Second Degree conviction.
Galo himself stated at the hearing:
Yeah, just I'd like to say that this is getting too much already. Prosecutor accusing me of being a criminal and everything just because of my record. You don't know what kind of person I am, you know that? Of course I did the crimes that I committed and I plead guilty to them. But not this promotion that I been charged and found guilty of. You know that? Your Honor, I would admit to that from the first, you know, from the beginning anyway.
Second of all, I'm awaiting for my -- see the Parole Board for the DUI I plead guilty over here '99 in front of you, which you sentence me to one open five in '99. That's the second -- that's the first one when I came in for my violation, the new charge was one DUI, Class B, five years. And then this promotion came up, I was doing time for the DUI. This happened in '99, this case.
Galo thus acknowledged that he had prior Class B felony convictions.
We conclude that the foregoing evidence was sufficient to establish that the "Kanana Pua Galo" convicted of Burglary in the First Degree in Cr. No. 94-1477 is the same "Pua Galo" convicted in this case.
C.
As to Galo's final argument, we conclude that Galo's sentence was not so disproportionate to the conduct for which he was convicted or of such duration as to "shock the conscience of reasonable persons" or "outrage the moral sense of the community" and constitute cruel and unusual punishment. See State v. Kumukau, 71 Haw. 218, 226-27, 787 P.2d 682, 687 (1990).
For the foregoi
Page 1 2 3 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|