State v. Letuli9/16/2002
Plaintiff-Appellant State of Hawaii (the State) appeals from the Order of Dismissal With Prejudice entered on December 29, 2000, District Judge Russell Blair presiding in the District Court of the First Circuit, sua sponte dismissing with prejudice some but not all of the charges against Defendant-Appellee Pesamino Letuli (Letuli). The State's appeal is authorized by Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 641-13(1) (1993), which allows the State to appeal in a criminal case " rom an order . . . quashing. . . any . . . complaint or any count thereof[.]" We vacate and remand.
BACKGROUND
On October 2, 2000, Letuli was in the District Court of the First Circuit, Waianae Division, for trial on various charges. At this hearing, a Samoan language interpreter was requested, and the case was continued for trial to December 11, 2000. On December 11, 2000, for reasons unknown, there was no Samoan language interpreter. After receiving the "attestation of Alberta Souza, District Court Clerk II, Waianae Division," that the tape recording of the December 11, 2000 court proceedings was inaudible, the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney and the Deputy Public Defender stipulated to and, pursuant to Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 10(c), the court "APPROVED AND SO ORDERED" a Statement of the Evidence of Proceedings When Transcript Unavailable, which states, in relevant part, as follows:
Due to the March 27, 2001 "Attestation of Alberta Souza", stating that the tape of proceedings of December 11, 2000, in the istrict Court of the First Circuit, Waianae Division is "inaudible", and pursuant to Rule 10(c) of the Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure . . ., the STATE OF HAWAII, by and through ALBERT COOK, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, City and County of Honolulu, State of Hawaii, and Defendant PESAMINO LETULI, by and through his counsel, ADRIENNE SANDERS, Deputy Public Defender, State of Hawaii, stipulate that the following took place on the record on December 11, 2000, in the District Court of the First Circuit, Waianae Division, and that such be made part of the Record on Appeal.
The above cases were called. Before continuing the cases, due to no interpreter, the court, sua sponte, dismissed SD9922071; 4686967MO; 4686968; 000328257; 000328260; and 000328258, with prejudice.
The State objected, stating that other than not having an interpreter, the State was ready to proceed, and further, dismissing these charges would prejudice the State in that at the next setting, the dismissed charges would not be available for plea bargaining purposes.
The Court stated, "objection noted", and proceeded to continue the remaining charges until February 9, 2001. No reason was given by the Court for the dismissal of the above charges. (Emphases in original.)
The charges, with the dismissed charges outlined in bold lettering, are as follows:
(1) Five counts of Criminal Contempt of Court, HRS § 710-1077 (1993)(Report Nos. 00-328254, 00-328257, 00-328258, 00-328260, and SD99-22071).
(2) Delinquent Motor Vehicle Tax, HRS § 249-2 (1993) (Report No. 4686967MO).
(3) No Safety Check, HRS § 286-25 (1993) (Report No. 4686968MO).
(4) No No-Fault Insurance, HRS § 431:10C-104 (1993) (Report No. 4686969MO).
(5) Driving After License Suspended for Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor, HRS § 291-4.5 (1993 and Supp. 2000) (Report No. 4686970MO).
(6) Two counts of Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor, HRS § 291-4 (1993 and Supp. 2000) (Report Nos. 97-070537, 99-072716).
(7) Harassment, HRS § 711-1106 (1993) (Report No. 98-128412).
Page 1 2 3 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|