 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Kaahaaina10/17/2001
Defendant-Appellant Rickie Kaahaaina (Kaahaaina) was charged by complaints dated July 14, 1999, with Driving While License Suspended or Revoked, in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 286-132 (Supp. 2000), and driving without No-Fault insurance, in violation HRS § 431:10C-104 (Supp. 2000).
At the initial arraignment and plea in the District Court of the Second Circuit, Wailuku Division, (the district court) on August 26, 1999, the prosecutor moved to amend the Driving while License Suspended or Revoked charge to Driving After License Suspended or Revoked for Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor, in violation of HRS § 291-4.5 (1993 & Supp. 2000).
The district court granted the motion, referred Kaahaaina to the public defender's office, and continued the arraignment and plea until September 16, 1999. Following a trial on December 22, 1999, the district court found Kaahaaina guilty of both charges. The district court sentenced Kaahaaina as follows: (1) Driving After License Suspended or Revoked for Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor a $500.00 fine, a $7.00 payment to the Driver's Education Fund, and a $20.00 administrative fee.
Kaahaaina appeals the December 22, 1999, Judgment of the district court. On appeal, Kaahaaina contends that the district court erred because (1) it lacked jurisdiction since he was never formally charged with a crime; (2) it convicted him for operating a vehicle while his license was revoked where there was insufficient evidence that he had received notice of the Administrative Revocation decision; (3) it convicted him of driving after his license was suspended or revoked where there was insufficient evidence elicited at trial that Kaahaaina intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly operated a vehicle while his license was suspended or revoked; and (4) it ordered that he pay $1500.00 in fines without first inquiring into his ability to pay the fines imposed. The State concedes that Kaahaaina was not properly charged, and therefore the December 22, 1999, Judgment of the district court must be vacated.
The district court erred by convicting Kaahaaina of violating HRS § 291-4.5 because Kaahaaina was never formally charged orally or by written complaint. See State v. Knoeppel, 71 Haw. 168, 785 P.2d 1321 (1990). At Kaahaaina's arraignment and plea on September 16, 1999, the deputy public defender stated: Deputy Public Defender . . . on behalf of Rickie Kaahaaina, who is present, your Honor.
At this time we will waive public reading of the charge, enter pleas of not guilty, and ask that the matter be set for trial.
The State failed to properly initiate the criminal proceedings against Kaahaaina and thus failed to initiate jurisdiction in the district court. Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 5(b)(1) provides:
Rule 5. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE DISTRICT COURT
(b) Offenses Other Than Felony.
(1) Arraignment.
In the district court, if the offense charged against the defendant is other than a felony, the complaint shall be filed or the oral charge stated, a copy of such charge and any affidavits in support thereof and a copy of the appropriate order, if any, shall be furnished the defendant, and proceedings shall be had in accordance with this section (b). Arraignment shall be in open court and shall consist of the reading of the complaint or the statement of the oral charge to the defendant, or stating the substance of the charge and calling on the defendant to plead thereto. In addition to the requirements of Rule 10.1, the court shall in appropriate cases inform the defendant of the right to jury trial in the
Page 1 2 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|