 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Bohannon8/21/2003
nse to require an order already entered to be again subsequently "filed." Therefore, I do not find compelling the majority's contention that although HRPP Rule 44(b)(1) "prescribes the procedure by which an order becomes final in the district courts[,] the order . . . does not become appealable until a separate written order has been filed with the clerk of the court in accordance with HRAP Rule 4(b)(3)." Majority opinion at 15 (footnote and emphases omitted) (emphasis added). A plain language reading of HRPP Rule 44(b)(1) yields no indication that a separate written order must be filed. Rather, the entry in fact constitutes such filing under HRAP Rule 4(b)(3). The majority cites no authority for its dicta with respect to HRPP Rule 44(b)(1).
Of course, although discussed by the majority, it is of no consequence that HRPP Rule 44(b)(1) was in effect at the time the prosecution's motion for reconsideration was denied because the motion did not toll the time for appeal. A motion for reconsideration is not a tolling motion. The majority's discussion of Rule 44(b)(1) as requiring the separate filing of an order is therefore a gratuitous one.
VI.
Here, the court announced the order granting the motion to suppress and dismissing the case on May 26, 2000. The clerk noted the decision and order on the court calendar on the same day. In my view, the order therefore should have been appealed within thirty days of May 26, 2000. Insofar as the prosecution did not appeal from the court's order on or prior to June 25, 2000, the thirtieth day after the order's entry, I believe its notice of appeal filed on February 15, 2001 was untimely. Consequently, I would hold that this court lacks jurisdiction. See HRAP Rule 4(b)(3); Security Pac. Mortgage Corp. v. Miller, 71 Haw. 65, 71, 783 P.2d 855, 858 (1989) (stating that "[the supreme] court's jurisdiction is limited to review of issues within the parameters of the orders from which timely appeal is taken" (emphasis added)); see e.g., State v. Irvine, 88 Hawaii 404, 405, 967 P.2d 236, 237 (1998) ("dismiss[ing an] appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the certification order and the notice of interlocutory appeal [were] untimely"); Oppenheimer v. AIG Hawaii Ins. Co., 77 Hawaii 88, 881 P.2d 1234 (1994) (appeal dismissed because notice of appeal was not filed within 30 days of order confirming arbitration award); Scott v. Liu, 46 Haw. 221, 377 P.2d 696 (1962) (reviewing court was without jurisdiction to hear appeal which was not taken within prescribed time), rehearing denied, 46 Haw. 289, 378 P.2d 880 (1963).
VII.
Based on the foregoing reasons, the prosecution's appeal should be dismissed.
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.
|
|