*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCWC-12-0000602
28-JAN-2016
08:41 AM
SCWC-12-0000602
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
________________________________________________________________
STATE OF HAWAII,
Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
EDDY A. ABORDO,
Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
(CAAP-12-0000602; CASE NO. 1DTC-11-082314)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Eddy A. Abordo (Abordo)
seeks review of the Intermediate Court of Appeals’ (ICA) April
13, 2015 Judgment on Appeal, entered pursuant to its February
23, 2015 Summary Disposition Order, which vacated the District
Court of the First Circuit’s (district court)1 May 30, 2012
1
The Honorable Linda K.C. Luke presided.
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.2 The district
court found Abordo guilty of Operating a Vehicle after License
and Privilege Have Been Suspended or Revoked for Operating a
Vehicle Under the Influence of an Intoxicant (OVLPSR-OVUII), in
violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes § 291E-62 (2007 & Supp.
2010).
On certiorari, Abordo contends, inter alia, that the
ICA erred in holding that the district court properly permitted
the State to amend the charge against Abordo to allege the
required mens rea for the offense. Abordo argues that the
defective charge rendered the district court without
jurisdiction over the case, and, therefore, without jurisdiction
to permit the State to amend the charge. We disagree. In
Schwartz v. State, we recently held that “the failure of a
charging instrument to allege an element of an offense does not
constitute a jurisdictional defect that fails to confer subject-
matter jurisdiction to the district court.” 136 Hawaiʻi 258,
282, 361 P.3d 1161, 1185 (2015). Accordingly, the ICA correctly
concluded that the district court properly permitted the State
to amend the charge.
We further conclude that Abordo’s remaining claims
lack merit.
2
The ICA vacated and remanded the case based on the district
court’s misstatement of the standard of proof.
2
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the ICA’s Judgment on Appeal
is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, January 28, 2016.
James S. Tabe /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
for petitioner
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
Brian R. Vincent
for respondent /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
/s/ Michael D. Wilson
3