 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Bohannon8/21/2003
ne of these printout copies have been file-stamped. Therefore, according to Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 10 (2003), these printout copies are not a part of the record on appeal.
In this case, the only evidence of the alleged facts that "on May 26, 2000, the district court clerk recorded the foregoing dispositions on the traffic calendar[,]" and that, on July 17, 2000, "the district court clerk recorded the foregoing disposition on the traffic calendar" are the printout copies. Nevertheless, for purposes of further discussion in the remainder of this opinion, I will assume that the printout copies are a part of the record on appeal.
In criminal cases, motions for reconsideration are not tolling motions. It follows that the prosecution's June 13, 2000 motion for reconsideration had no impact on the appealability of the May 26, 2000 order.
Assuming that the May 26, 2000 order was entered in the district court within the meaning of the Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) (2003), the question is whether it was entered within the meaning of HRAP Rule 4(b) so as to trigger the thirty-day time period for the filing of a notice of appeal. In light of the definition of "entered" stated in HRAP Rule 4(b)(3), the answer is no because it was not "filed with the clerk of the court." Therefore, the thirty-day time period to file a notice of appeal did not commence.
The July 17, 2000 order was not appealable when entered within the meaning of HRPP Rule 44(b)(1) (1993) because it was not entered within the meaning of HRAP Rule 4(b)(3).
Both the July 17, 2000 order and the December 11, 2000/January 22, 2001 order were not appealable when entered within the meaning of HRPP Rule 44(b)(1) because they merely denied the prosecution's motions for reconsideration. A denial of a motion for reconsideration is not appealable prior to entry of the order sought to be reconsidered. In the absence of an appealable order granting the motion to dismiss and dismissing the case, neither order was appealable when entered.
The January 31, 2001 order was appealable when filed and was validly appealed by the February 15, 2001 notice of appeal. This valid appeal of the January 31, 2001 order allowed a challenge of the December 11, 2000/January 22, 2001 order. State v. Hirano, 8 Haw. App. 330, 332 n.3, 802 P.2d 482, 484 n.3 (1990).
The majority's opinion concludes "that, in order to appeal a criminal matter in the district court, the appealing party must appeal from a written judgment or order that has been filed with the clerk of the court pursuant to HRAP Rule 4(b)(3)." Note that the word "written" is not used anywhere in HRAP Rule 4(b)(3). In my view, the "filed" requirement makes the "written" requirement unnecessary. I am unaware of any other kind of judgment or order that can be "filed." Moreover, the "written" requirement is not an issue. The issue is whether either of the following would satisfy HRAP Rule 4(b)(3): (a) the filing of the traffic calendar with the court clerk's written or typed disposition entries on it or (b) the filing of a copy of the relevant computer printout pages of the traffic calendar after the disposition information has been typed into the computer.
In my view, as long as HRAP Rule 4(b)(3) requires a "filed" "judgment or order", we need a document, signed by the judge and file-stamped, that states the relevant information. A copy of this document can be given to the defendant and will be the source of the unofficial information in the computer.
CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY NAKAYAMA, J.
I agree that this court has appellate jurisdiction to address the merits of t
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|