NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
25-FEB-2021
08:09 AM
Dkt. 58 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
CHRISTOPHER ALMLI, Defendant-Appellant
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(WAI#ANAE DIVISION)
(CASE NO. 1DTA-19-02953)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Leonard and Wadsworth, JJ.)
Defendant-Appellant Christopher Delano Almli (Almli)
appeals from the Notice of Entry of Judgment and/or Order and
Plea/Judgment entered on March 13, 2020 (Judgment), in the
District Court of the First Circuit, Wai#anae Division (District
Court).1/
On September 17, 2019, Almli was charged by Complaint
with Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of an Intoxicant
1/
The Honorable Sherri-Ann Iha presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
(OVUII) in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 291E-
61(a)(1) and/or (a)(4) (Supp. 2019).2/ On March 13, 2020, the
District Court dismissed the Complaint without prejudice "based
on the fact that [the Honolulu Police Department] has not
complied with what [discovery] was requested and the State is not
ready to proceed today." The District Court stated, "I'm going
to dismiss it without prejudice because the case should be heard
on its merits," without any further explanation.
On appeal, Almli raises a single point of error,
contending that the District Court erred in dismissing the case
without prejudice or, at the very least, the case should be
vacated and remanded for findings in support of dismissing with
or without prejudice. Although the State argues that the
District Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the
case without prejudice, the State acknowledges that perhaps the
District Court did not sufficiently articulate the Estencion3/
2/
HRS § 291E-61(a)(1) provides:
§ 291E-61 Operating a vehicle under the influence of
an intoxicant. (a) A person commits the offense of
operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant if
the person operates or assumes actual physical control of a
vehicle:
(1) While under the influence of alcohol in an
amount sufficient to impair the person's normal
mental faculties or ability to care for the
person and guard against casualty[.]
. . . .
(4) With .08 or more grams of alcohol per one
hundred milliliters or cubic centimeters of
blood.
3/
See State v. Estencion, 63 Haw. 264, 625 P.2d 1040 (1981).
2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
factors and any other factors it considered in rendering its
decision to dismiss without prejudice.
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs
submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to
the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we
resolve Almli's point of error as follows:
"In criminal cases, 'the power of a court to dismiss a
case on its own motion for failure to prosecute with due
diligence is inherent.'" State v. Mageo, 78 Hawai#i 33, 37, 889
P.2d 1092, 1096 (App. 1995) (emphasis and brackets omitted)
(quoting Estencion, 63 Haw. at 268, 625 P.2d at 1043). A trial
court has the inherent power to dismiss a charge with or without
prejudice, but must clearly articulate the reasons for its
decision so that a reviewing court may accurately assess whether
the trial court duly exercised its discretion. See id. at 37-38,
889 P.2d at 1096-97 (trial courts exercising their inherent power
to dismiss a criminal case with prejudice should set forth their
reasons for doing so); see also State v. Hern, 133 Hawai#i 59,
64, 323 P.3d 1241, 1246 (App. 2013) (in determining whether to
dismiss a charge with or without prejudice under Hawai#i Rules of
Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 48(b), the trial court must "clearly
articulate the effect of the . . . factors [set forth in
Estencion, 63 Haw. at 269, 625 P.2d at 1044] and any other factor
it considered in rendering its decision"). When issuing its
findings, the trial court should consider the appropriate factors
3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
depending upon the grounds for dismissal. Compare Mageo, 78
Hawai#i at 37-38, 889 P.2d at 1096-97 (dismissal with or without
prejudice for want of prosecution requires "balancing of the
interest of the state against fundamental fairness to a defendant
with the added ingredient of the orderly functioning of the court
system" (quoting State v. Moriwake, 65 Haw. 47, 56, 647 P.2d 705,
712 (1982)) (bracket omitted)), with Estencion, 63 Haw. at 269,
625 P.2d at 1044 (dismissal with or without prejudice for
violation of HRPP Rule 48 requires consideration of: "the
seriousness of the offense; the facts and the circumstances of
the case which led to the dismissal; and the impact of a
reprosecution on the administration of this chapter and on the
administration of justice.").
Here, the District Court did not provide any
explanation for its decision to dismiss the charge without
prejudice, except to say that the case should be heard on the
merits, which is devoid of an explanation or findings consistent
with applicable case law. We conclude that the record in this
case is inadequate for this court to meaningfully review whether
the District Court properly exercised its discretion in
dismissing Almli's OVUII charge without prejudice.
Therefore, the District Court's March 13, 2020 Judgment
is vacated, and this case is remanded to the District Court to
make findings that articulate the factors considered in rendering
4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
its decision to dismiss with or without prejudice and the effect
of those factors in this case.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, February 25, 2021.
On the briefs:
/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza
Richard L. Holcomb, Chief Judge
(Holcomb Law, LLLC),
for Defendant-Appellant. /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Associate Judge
Stephen K. Tsushima,
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
City and County of Honolulu, Associate Judge
for Plaintiff-Appellee.
5