***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***
Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCWC-13-0002551
25-FEB-2016
03:07 PM
SCWC-13-0002551
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
STATE OF HAWAI'I,
Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
BRANDON HAYATA,
Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.
CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
(CAAP-13-0002551; FC-CR NO. 11-1-1992)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna,
Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Brandon Hayata seeks
review of the Intermediate Court of Appeals’s (ICA) August 31,
2015 Judgment on Appeal filed pursuant to its June 15, 2015
Summary Disposition Order. The ICA affirmed the Family Court of
the First Circuit’s Judgment of Conviction and Sentence. The
family court adjudged Hayata guilty of violating an order of
***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***
protection, in violation of Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 586
11 (Supp. 2012).1 We accepted Hayata’s application for writ of
certiorari and now vacate the ICA’s Judgment on Appeal and the
family court’s judgment, and remand the case to the family court
to decide whether to dismiss Hayata’s conviction with or without
prejudice.
After being arrested on September 17, 2012, Hayata
appeared several times before Judge Jeannette Castagnetti. The
start date of Hayata’s trial was continued numerous times due to
court congestion. When Hayata appeared for a calendar call on
February 11, 2013, Judge Castagnetti was ill and could not
proceed with trial, which led to an additional one-month
continuance. On July 15, 2013, the day before trial began,
Hayata made an oral motion to dismiss for violation of Hawai'i
Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 48, which requires dismissal
if trial is not commenced within six months of the defendant’s
arrest.2 Hayata argued that the one-month delay due to Judge
1
HRS § 586-11 provides in relevant part: “Whenever an order for
protection is granted pursuant to this chapter, a respondent or person to be
restrained who knowingly or intentionally violates the order for protection is
guilty of a misdemeanor.”
2
HRPP Rule 48 (“Dismissal”) provides, in relevant part:
(b) By Court. Except in the case of traffic
offenses that are not punishable by imprisonment, the
court shall, on motion of the defendant, dismiss the
charge,
(continued...)
2
***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***
Castagnetti’s illness did not meet the Rule 48 criteria for
excludable periods of time. The family court denied his motion,3
finding that Judge Castagnetti’s one-month absence due to illness
constituted “good cause” and should thus be excluded from
computing the time for trial to commence. Based on this finding,
the family court concluded that Hayata’s Rule 48 period would not
expire until July 17, 2013. Hayata was subsequently convicted of
violating the protection order and sentenced to two years’
probation.
On certiorari, Hayata contends that the ICA erred in
affirming the family court’s judgment because the family court
made no findings “establishing that Judge Castagnetti or any
other family circuit court judge exercised due diligence to
accommodate Hayata’s trial” or “any findings that an attempt was
made to secure a replacement judge or to transfer the case to
2
(...continued)
with or without prejudice in its discretion, if trial
is not commenced within six months:
. . . .
c) Excluded Periods. The following periods
shall be excluded in computing the time for trial
commencement:
. . . .
(8) other periods of delay for good cause.
3
The Honorable Dean E. Ochiai presided over the hearing on the
motion, as well as subsequent proceedings in the case.
3
***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***
another courtroom in order to safeguard Hayata’s rights under
HRPP Rule 48.”
In State v. Abregano, No. SCWC-13-0000401, 2015 WL
8556221, at *7 (Haw. Dec. 11, 2015), we held that “although a
trial judge’s illness may constitute good cause for some period
of delay, under the circumstances of this case, where there is an
absence in the record of any attempt to find a replacement judge
or reassign Abregano’s case, there was no good cause to exclude a
four-week period.” (Emphasis in original). Applying those
principles here, where the record similarly lacks a basis to
support a finding that there were no replacement judges
available, the family court’s ruling in the instant case that
Judge Castagnetti’s illness constituted “good cause” was in
error, and the ICA erred by concluding that the family court
properly denied Hayata’s motion to dismiss pursuant to HRPP Rule
48. Accordingly, Hayata’s conviction must be vacated.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the ICA’s August 31, 2015
Judgment on Appeal affirming the family court’s July 17, 2013
Judgment of Conviction and Sentence is vacated. As in Abregano,
4
***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***
we remand the case to the family court to decide whether to
dismiss Hayata’s conviction with or without prejudice.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, February 25, 2016.
Walter J. Rodby /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
for petitioner
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
Stephen K. Tsushima
for respondent /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
/s/ Michael D. Wilson
5