NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
29-OCT-2021
07:51 AM
Dkt. 85 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
JUSTIN IKEDA, also known as Justin Hideo Okazaki,
Defendant-Appellant
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(HONOLULU DIVISION)
(CASE NO. 1DTC-18-508652)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Hiraoka and Wadsworth, JJ.)
Defendant-Appellant, Justin Ikeda (Ikeda) appeals from
the July 23, 2019 Notice of Entry of Judgment and/or Order and
Plea/Judgment (Judgment), and October 15, 2019 [Amended] Notice
of Entry of Judgment and/or Order and Plea/Judgment (Amended
Judgment), as further amended by the September 16, 2020 [Second
Amended] Notice of Entry of Judgment and/or Order and
Plea/Judgment (Second Amended Judgment), which were entered
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
against him by the District Court of the First Circuit, Honolulu
Division (District Court).1
On January 23, 2019, the State of Hawai#i (State)
charged Ikeda with three counts: Count 1, Operating a Vehicle
After License and Privilege Have Been Suspended or Revoked for
Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of an Intoxicant (OVUII),
Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 291E-62(a)(1), and/or (a)(2),
(c)(3) (Supp. 2017) (Count 1); Count 2, Conditions of Operation
and Registration of Motor Vehicles, HRS § 431:10C-104(a) (2005),
HRS § 431:10C-117(a) (2005 & Supp. 2017) (Count 2); and Count 3,
Littering from Vehicles, HRS § 291C-132(a) (2007) (Count 3).
After receiving Ikeda's written jury trial waiver form
and conducting an oral colloquy, the District Court determined
that Ikeda had waived his right to a jury trial.
Following a bench trial, the District Court found Ikeda
guilty on all three counts. Under Count 1, Ikeda was sentenced
to one year imprisonment, subject to a $2,000 fine, and permanent
revocation of his license; under Count 2, he was sentenced to
five days in jail and a three month license suspension; and under
Count 3, he was sentenced to one day in jail.
Ikeda raises a single point of error on appeal,
contending that the District Court plainly erred when it failed
1
The Honorable Michelle N. Comeau presided.
2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
to obtain a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his
right to a jury trial on the OVUII charge in Count 1.
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 Ikeda's point of error as follows:
Ikeda argues that, during the District Court's oral
colloquy with him, the District Court became aware that Ikeda did
not know that he was subject to a mandatory one-year term of
imprisonment and the permanent loss of his driver's license.
This argument is, however, based on an error in the transcription
of the proceedings. The transcript states:
[District Court]: Did she [referring to defense
counsel] also tell you what the maximum possible penalty for
each charge might be if convicted?
[Ikeda]: No.
Noting that it was odd that the District Court moved on
to the next question and did not clarify for Ikeda – and neither
defense counsel nor the prosecuting attorney attempted to address
the issue – the State reviewed the CD Electronic Recording from
which the transcript was transcribed. The State discovered that
there was no discernible response to the District Court's
question and requested a correction or modification of the
transcript. Upon this court's temporary remand to the District
Court to address the issue, the District Court entered an order
finding that there was no discernible response to the question.
3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Ikeda argues that his negative response to the District
Court's question, as stated above, constitutes a salient fact
contained in the record that his oral waiver was not knowingly or
intelligently obtained. However, the record does not in fact
contain such negative response, and the circumstances identified
by the State do not support an assumption that the lack of any
discernible response is tantamount to a negative response.
Ikeda points to no other salient facts and makes no other
argument.
The Hawai#i Supreme Court has held that "the validity
of the waiver of a right to a jury trial is reviewed under the
totality of the circumstances surrounding the case, taking into
account the defendant's background, experience, and conduct."
State v. Gomez-Lobato, 130 Hawai#i 465, 470, 312 P.3d 897, 902
(2013) (citation, emphasis and internal quotation marks omitted);
see also State v. Torres, 144 Hawai#i 282, 284, 439 P.3d 234, 236
(2019) ("[W]e require trial courts to conduct on-the-record
colloquies prior to accepting such waivers, thereby ensuring that
defendants understand the nature and consequences of their
decisions and make their choices freely.").
Upon our review of the totality of the circumstances
surrounding this case, taking into account Ikeda's background,
experience, and conduct, as well as the written jury trial waiver
(including defense counsel's certification), and the oral
colloquy, we conclude that the District Court did not err in
4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
determining that Ikeda intelligently, knowingly, and voluntarily
waived his right to a jury trial.
Accordingly, the District Court's September 16, 2020
Second Amended Judgment is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, October 29, 2021.
On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Presiding Judge
Susan Arnett,
Deputy Public Defender, /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
for Defendant-Appellant. Associate Judge
Sonja P. McCullen, /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Associate Judge
City and County of Honolulu,
for Plaintiff-Appellee.
5