 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Basabe8/16/2004
FOR PUBLICATION
Pete K. Basabe (Basabe) appeals the October 2, 2002 judgment of the district court of the third circuit that convicted him of four offenses relating to his taking of aquatic life for aquarium purposes. Of the four, his conviction of a petty misdemeanor for doing so in the Milolii fisheries management area, in violation of Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) § 13-60.3-3 (December 31, 1999), is at issue in this appeal. Because Basabe asserts he was alleged to have taken seventeen specimens of aquatic life, he contends the maximum fine for his violation of HAR § 13-60.3-3 was $18,000, pursuant to HAR § 13-60.3-4 (December 31, 1999) and Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) §§ 187A-12.5(c)(1) and -12.5(e) (Supp. 2003). Basabe avers, thereon, that the district court erred when it denied his request for a jury trial, because his offense was a constitutionally "serious" one. We hold, thereon, that it was not.
Hence, the district court was right to turn down Basabe's request for a jury trial. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
I. Background
At Basabe's arraignment, the district court denied his oral request for a jury trial.His bench trial began on April 23, 2002, and he was convicted as charged of all four offenses. For his violation of HAR § 13-60.3-3, Basabe was fined $500. Fines ranging from $100 to $500 were levied for the other three offenses, but all four fines were imposed on a "concurrent" basis.
II. Discussion
The sole question presented in this appeal is whether there is a constitutional right to a jury trial for a violation of HAR § 13-60.3-3, where the offense is a petty misdemeanor, HAR § 13-60.3-4; HRS § 188-70 (Supp. 2003), and the purported maximum fine is $18,000. See HAR § 13-60.3-4; HRS §§ 187A-12.5(c)(1) & -12.5(e). This is a question of constitutional law. " e review questions of constitutional law de novo under the 'right/wrong' standard." State v. Rogan, 91 Hawaii 405, 411, 984 P.2d 1231, 1237 (1999) (citations omitted).
1. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in pertinent part that, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury[.]" "The Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment." Blanton v. City of North Las Vegas, 489 U.S. 538, 541 n.4 (1989) (citation omitted). The United States Supreme Court has held, however, that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial is not absolute. "Petty" offenses are unencumbered by the Sixth Amendment's jury trial provision. Id. at 541. Thus, the determinative inquiry here is whether the subject violation of HAR § 13-60.3-3 was a "petty" or "serious" offense under the Sixth Amendment.
The Supreme Court has made it clear that where the maximum prison term for an offense is six months or less, there is a presumption the offense is "petty" for Sixth Amendment purposes. Blanton, 489 U.S. at 542-43. "A defendant is entitled to a jury trial in such circumstances only if he can demonstrate that any additional statutory penalties, viewed in conjunction with the maximum authorized period of incarceration, are so severe that they clearly reflect a legislative determination that the offense in question is a 'serious' one." Id. at 543. But "because incarceration is an intrinsically different form of punishment, it is the most powerful indication whether an offense is 'serious.'" Id. at 542 (citation and related internal quotation marks omitted). "Penalties such as probation or a fine may engender a significant infringement of pe
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|