 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Trenda9/25/2000
On March 31, 1999, pursuant to Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 11(a)(2), Defendant-Appellant Ritchie Trenda (Trenda) entered a conditional plea of no contest to the charges of failing to have a safety check, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 286-25, driving left of center on a roadway, HRS § 291C-46(a), and driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor, HRS § 291-4. He was found guilty and sentenced.
Trenda appeals the district court's May 4, 1999 Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Suppress (May 4, 1999 Order).
BACKGROUND
At the beginning of the hearing on March 31, 1999, the following was stated in relevant part:
THE COURT: Ready to proceed to trial?
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Actually, our motion is to suppress.
THE COURT: Well, this is the trial, isn't it, as well? We're doing the trial at the same time, aren't we?
[DEPUTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY]: Judge, my understanding of the situation is that we will be having the motion to suppress, depending upon the Court's ruling on the motion to suppress, if the motion to suppress is granted, obviously, the trial will not take place. If the motion to suppress is not granted, my understanding is that the defendant would be offering a Rule 11, conditional plea.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: If I may, Your Honor, I stated my objection to not being allowed to have a pre-trial motion hearing and I tried to schedule it and was told that Your Honor wasn't allowing pre-trial motion hearings on any date, but the [trial] date.
The prejudice to my client is that because we weren't able to bring you here any earlier, are [that] witnesses have -- or may have some memory loss. Our position is that under the rules that we should have been allowed to hold this hearing a month ago and we weren't so allowed and my client doesn't have the benefit of a report to refresh his recollection, which the police officer does and [the Deputy Prosecuting Attorney] did serve it on me yesterday and I believe that she, in good faith, did not know that it existed prior to serving it on me and served it on me promptly as soon as she learned of it.
Based upon the March 31, 1999 hearing, the circuit court issued the May 4, 1999 Order stating in relevant part as follows:
Now, therefore, the Court finds as follows:
3. The Court finds Officer Jeremie Evangelista to be a credible witness.
4. The Court finds Defendant Ritchie Trenda to be a credible witness;
5. The Court does not find defense witness Larry Larson to be a credible witness, based on the incredible difference between his testimony and the testimony of witnesses Evangelista and Trenda;
6. On August 28, 1998, both [Trenda] and Officer Evangelista were headed mauka on Kawaihae Road. The officer, who was following [Trenda] observed [Trenda] to swerve over the centerline while rounding a right hand curve;
7. Upon getting closer to [Trenda's] vehicle, [Officer] Evangelista observed that the safety sticker was expired;
8. Officer Evangelista initiated a traffic stop by turning on his flashing blue lights. It was Officer Evangelista's observation that [Trenda] took a long period of time to pull off the roadway;
9. Officer Evangelista requested that [Trenda] produce his driver's license, vehicle registration and proof of insurance;
10. Officer Evangelista observed [Trenda] fumbling for his license and fumbling for his other documents;
11. [Trenda's] speech was observed to be slow by Officer Evangelista and [Trenda] was observed to have watery eyes;
12. Offi
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|