(SERVICE VIA JEFS NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING)

NO. SCWC-18-0000381

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI`I

STATE OF HAWAI`I,

Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs.

DAWN NAEOLE,

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee.

)))))))))))))))

CASE NO. 1PC161001997

APPLICATION FOR WRIT OFCERTIORARI FROM THEMEMORANDUM OPINION OF THEINTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS,FILED MAY 10, 2019

INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

HONORABLE ALEXA D.M. FUJISE,Presiding JudgeHONORABLE DERRICK H.M. CHANHONORABLE KEITH K. HIRAOKAAssociate Judges

____________________________________)

APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

APPENDICES “A” THROUGH “C”

OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDERJOHN M. TONAKI 3915-0PUBLIC DEFENDERBY: PHYLLIS J. HIRONAKA 4778

DEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDER1130 N. NIMITZ HIGHWAY, SUITE A-254HONOLULU, HAWAI`I 96817TELEPHONE: (808)586-2080EMAIL: phyllis.j.hironaka@hawaii.govATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER/

DEFENDANT-APPELLEE

Û´»½¬®±²·½¿´´§ Ú·´»¼Í«°®»³» ݱ«®¬

ÍÝÉÝóïèóððððíèïïîóßËÙóîðïç

ïðæîë ßÓ

SUBJECT INDEX

I. QUESTION PRESENTED..................................................................................................2

II. STATEMENT OF PRIOR PROCEEDINGS ......................................................................2

III. STATEMENT OF THE CASE ............................................................................................3

IV. ARGUMENT………….......................................................................................................7

A. THE ICA GRAVELY ERRED IN (1) VACATING THE CIRCUITCOURT’S ORDER GRANTING NAEOLE’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS;(2) RULING THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT WRONGLY CONCLUDEDTHAT, ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, THE POLICE FAILED TOALLOW NAEOLE A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME TORESPOND TO THEIR DEMAND FOR ENTRY; AND (3) HOLDINGTHAT (a) NAEOLE WAS AFFORDED A REASONABLE AMOUNTOF TIME TO RESPOND TO THE POLICE’S DEMAND FOR ENTRY;and (b) THE CIRCUIT COURT SHOULD HAVE DENIED NAEOLE’SMOTION TO SUPPRESS .......................................................................................7

V. CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................11

APPENDICES “A” THROUGH “C”

ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES Pages

State v. Garcia,77 Hawai`i 461, 887 P.2d 671 (App. 1995)................................................................. 10,11

1

NO. SCWC-18-0000381

IN THE SUPREME COURT THE STATE OF HAWAI`I

STATE OF HAWAI`I,

Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs.

DAWN NAEOLE,

Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee.

)))))))))))))))

CASE NO. 1PC161001997

APPLICATION FOR WRIT OFCERTIORARI FROM THEMEMORANDUM OPINION OF THEINTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS,FILED MAY 10, 2019

INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

HONORABLE ALEXA D.M. FUJISE,Presiding JudgeHONORABLE DERRICK H.M. CHANHONORABLE KEITH K. HIRAOKAAssociate Judges

____________________________________)

APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Pursuant to Rule 40.1 of the Hawai`i Rules of Appellate Procedure (“HRAP”), Petitioner/

Defendant-Appellee DAWN NAEOLE (“Naeole”) respectfully prays that this Court issue a writ

of certiorari to review the Memorandum Opinion (“Mem.Op.”) of the Intermediate Court of

Appeals (“ICA”), filed on May 10, 2019, vacating the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,

and Order Denying in Part, and Granting in Part, Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence

(“FOF/COL/O”), filed April 5, 2018, in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit. (Record on

Appeal1 AP:Dkt#51:Mem.Op.; see Appendix “A.”)

1 The Record on Appeal consists of two electronic records, each with its own set of docketnumbers, one from the circuit court under Case No. 1PC161001997 and one from the appellatecourt under NO. CAAP-18-0000381. References herein to documents in the circuit court record(e.g., motions, judgment, etc.) will be as follows: “PC:Dkt#(#): (doc.title/date/PDF page#, ifhelpful);” references to documents in the appellate court record will be as follows:“AP:Dkt#(#):(doc.title/date/PDF page#, if helpful).” Transcripts of Proceedings will beabbreviated “Tr.(date):(page#).”

2

Pursuant to HRAP Rules 26(a) and 40.1(a) (2016), this application may be filed on or

before August 16, 2019. The original deadline for the filing of this Application was July 17,

2019, thirty (30) days after the June 17, 2019 filing of the Judgment on Appeal (AP:Dkt#53; see

Appendix “B”). However, the deadline was extended to the current August 16, 2019, actually

Monday, August 19, 2019 because August 16 is a state holiday, by the June 18, 2019 grant of

automatic extension (AP:Dkt#57; see Appendix “C”) by the Appellate Clerk pursuant to HRAP

Rule 40.1(2) and (3). This Court has jurisdiction under HRS §§602-5 (2010) and 602-59 (2010).

I.

QUESTION PRESENTED

A. Whether the ICA gravely erred in (1) vacating the circuit court’s order granting Naeole’sMotion to Suppress; (2) ruling that the circuit court wrongly concluded that, on the factsof this case, the police failed to allow Naeole a reasonable amount of time to respond totheir demand for entry; and (3) holding that (a) Naeole was afforded a reasonable amountof time to respond to the police’s demand for entry; and (b) the circuit court should havedenied Naeole’s Motion to Suppress.

II.

STATEMENT OF PRIOR PROCEEDINGS

On December 27, 2016, in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, the State of Hawai`i

(“State”) filed a five-count Indictment under CR. NO. 16-1-1997 (later converted to Case NO.

1PC161001997), alleging that, on or about September 4, 2015, Defendant-Appellee Dawn

Naeole (“Naeole”) committed the following offenses: Count 1, Promoting a Dangerous Drug in

the First Degree (“PDD1”) for “knowing[ly] possess[ing]…an aggregate weight of one ounce[]

or more[ of] methamphetamine,” in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (“HRS”) §712-

1241(1)(a)(i); Count 2, Promoting a Harmful Drug in the Second Degree (“Harm2-Tramadol”)

for knowing possession of “fifty or more capsules, tablets or dosage units [of] Tramadol,” in

3

violation of HRS §712-1245(1)(a); Count 3, Promoting a Harmful Drug in the Second Degree

(“Harm2-Lorazepam”) for knowing possession of “knowing[ly] possess[ing] fifty or more

capsule, tablets or dosage units [of] Lorazepam,” in violation of HRS §712-1245(1)(a); Count 4,

Unlawful Use of Drug Paraphernalia (“Para”), in violation of HRS §329-43.5(a); and Count 5,

Promoting a Detrimental Drug in the Third Degree, in violation of HRS §712-1249. (PC:Dkt#1.)

The charges arose from evidence recovered during the execution of a search warrant on Naeole’s

residence at 6:15 a.m. on September 4, 2015. (See, AP:Dkt#19:Tr.1/16/18 and AP:Dkt#13:

Tr.3/6/18.)

On June 28, 2017, Naeole filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence (“M/Suppress”) based on

three grounds (PC:Dkt#41), to which the State filed a Memorandum in Opposition (PC:Dkt#45).

A hearing on the M/Suppress commenced on January 16, 2018 and was furthered to, and

concluded on, March 6, 2018. (See, AP:Dkt#19:Tr.1/16/18 and AP:Dkt#13:Tr.3/6/18.) At the

hearing’s conclusion, the circuit court ruled that it was granting in part the M/Suppress based

only on the ground that the search warrant was unlawfully executed because law enforcement

failed to provide the occupants of the residence (including Naeole) the constitutionally-required

reasonable time to respond to the officers’ demands for entry. (Id.:43-47.)

The Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Denying in Part and Granting in

Part Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence (“FOF/COL/O”) was filed on April 5, 2018.

(PC:Dkt#56.) The State timely filed its Notice of Appeal on May 2, 2018. (AP:Dkt#1.)

On May 10, 2019, the ICA filed its Mem.Op. vacating the FOF/COL/O and remanding

the case for further proceedings. (AP:Dkt#51; see Appendix “A”.) Naeole remains out of

custody on bond, pending resolution of this case.

4

III.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

At about 6:15 a.m. on September 4, 2015, the Specialized Services Division of the

Honolulu Police Department (“HPD”) executed a search warrant on the residence of Dawn

Naeole (“Naeole”) and Wendy Fernandez, located at 85-910 Midway Street (Wai`anae) O`ahu.

(AP:Dkt#13:Tr.3/6/18:4-5,8.)

Shortly after 6:00 a.m., next door neighbor Zachariah Wentling (“Wentling”), age 25,

was “just chilling in [his] room” when his dogs began barking, which made him get up to look

out his front door. (AP:Dkt#19:Tr.1/16/18:9.) Upon opening the door, he saw “a whole lotta

cops” and cars, so he ran back to his bedroom and grabbed his phone to record the activity. (Id.:

10.) The distance from Wentling’s front door to his room was about from the double-doors of

the court to the wall behind the witness stand. (Id.:11.) When Wentling first saw the crowd of

police officers, they were “wrestling with their [Naeole/Fernandez’s] front gate. (Id.) State’s

Exhibits 2 & 3, photos of Naeole’s house, show the perimeter enclosed by a tall chain link fence,

with four chain link gates across the driveway. (PC:Dkt65: 3-4.)

When Wentling came back outside, the police were already at Naeole’s front door, so

that’s all he was able to record. (AP:Dkt#19:Tr.1/16/18:11-12.) Wentling testified:

WENTLING: They was already -- they was already at the front doorwhen I started recording, and pretty much, there was like a bang or two, “This isthe police.” I’m not too sure how many times they said it, but it was pretty fast.And then that’s when they broke down the door.

DEFENSE COUNSEL: Did you see them waiting or waiting for aresponse from inside the house before banging in through the door?

WENTLING: No. . . . .* * * *

DEFENSE COUNSEL: …when you were recording, did you at any timewitness them or saw them announce, wait maybe 15 seconds or 10 seconds beforerepeating themselves again? . . . .

WENTLING: No. It was just a quick process, bang, bang, bang, “This isthe police,” and then straight down with the door.

5

(AP:Dkt#19:Tr.1/16/18:12-13.) Defense Exhibit “A,” a copy of the video taken by Wentling and

admitted into evidence (id.:13-14), lasts roughly 5 seconds and shows the officers breaking the

door and entering the house. (PC:Dkt#67: 2-3.)

Wentling estimated the distance from Naeole’s gate to her front door was about 25-30

feet. (AP:Dkt#19:Tr.1/16/19:16,22.) He also explained that the distance from his front door to

his room as “a straight shot and then to the right” toward the back of the house, that it took less

than a minute for him to get there and back, and that while inside his house (retrieving his

phone), he didn’t hear anything from the police until he came back outside. (Id.:16-17.)

On September 4, 2015, Officer Stephen Roe (“Officer Roe”) as part of the Entry (versus

the Perimeter) team, was assigned to conduct the knock-and-announce at Naeole’s house.

(AP:Dkt#13:Tr.3/6/18:4-5.) The procedure consists of three knocks, followed by an

announcement, “Police. We have a search warrant. Open the door now,” then a pause; the

process is usually done three times, although in Naeole’s case, he did it four times. (Id.:6-7.)

Officer Roe demonstrated for the court the knock-and-announce he performed at Naeole’s house

for the court. (Id.:11.) After the third knock-and-announce, Officer Roe heard a female voice

from inside, but could not make out the words, though they appeared to be directed at the police.

(Id.:12-13.) He then did the fourth procedure, after which they broke down the door. (Id.:13.)

On cross-examination, Officer Roe agreed that the “pause” in the knock-and-announce

procedure was constitutionally required to give the occupant a chance to open the door to admit

the police. (AP:Dkt#13:Tr.3/6/18:21.) Officer Roe testified that the length of his pauses were as

long as those he had just demonstrated for the court. (Id.:22.) Although Officer Roe believed

the knock-and-announce procedure lasted “[r]oughly a minute to two minutes” (id.:13), defense

6

counsel had timed the demonstration, showed the prosecutor that the four-round courtroom

demonstration took 25 seconds, to which Officer Roe acquiesced (id.:23).

Defendant Naeole stated that she had just woken up and was on her way to the bathroom,

when she “heard boom, boom, boom, and they were in [her] house already. That’s why [she]

was right by the hallway when they came in.” (AP:Dkt#13:Tr.3/6/18:28.) She explained,

“Instead of using the bathroom, I walked towards the hallway, ‘cause they were -- they were in

my house already.” (Id.:29.) Naeole did not hear any repeated knocking, announcements that

police were at the door, or requests to open the door. (Id.)

On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked Naeole how far her bathroom was from the

front door. (AP:Dkt#13:Tr.3/6/19:31.) Naeole explained, “Well, okay, if this area was my

parlor area (indicates) … the front door is where I’m at [on the witness stand]. …. You walk in

20 feet, go left, and then halfway down the hallway.” (Id.) The prosecutor then got Naeole to

agree that the distance was about 25 feet. (Id.)

After a brief recess following Naeole’s testimony, the court granted the M/Suppress only

based on its conclusion that the police did not give Naeole a reasonable time to respond to their

demands for entry. (AP:Dkt#13:Tr.3/6/18:45.) The court explained its rationale as follows:

THE COURT: And this -- I will tell you right now, prior to hearing thetestimony of Officer Roe, who I found to be very credible, my initial thoughtswere that I may deny this motion on that ground. But after listening to histestimony within the context of everything else, and in particular, thedemonstration which -- wherein he demonstrated exactly what he did on themorning that the search warrant was executed -- and, yes, there was compliancewith the statute.

* * * *And while the statute’s language is clearly unambiguous, the Court finds

compelling the arguments made by defense in this case and are clearly resonatedin the Garcia opinion, where “immediately,” in order to give meaning to ourconstitution, cannot be read literally. And what that means is that any officerduring the execution of a warrant that is providing the occupants with notice --and that’s really what it is -- must give the occupants reasonable time to respond.

7

And I was struck by the fact that despite the officer’s testimony, that hedemonstrated how he went through this, there was no discernable pause betweeneach of the four knock-and-announce procedures. The only pause that perhapsthe Court can reasonably infer is after the third one, where he indicated that heheard what sounded like a female voice or voices coming from the interior of theunit, and he could not hear what was said, but then there was an indication that afourth knock-and-announce was accomplished. But all of that took place withinthe span of 25 seconds.

* * * *I think the officers did exactly what Officer Roe said. I think they went

there. They were lined up in a stack, eight deep, about to make entry. He madethose knock-and-announces, three of them, heard voices, and then made the fourthone, and after 25 seconds, the door was breached. And I cannot say under thefacts here that there is a reasonable amount of time to allow the occupants torespond.

And the whole purpose for allowing them to respond is so: One, you havea privacy consideration so that they can voluntarily relinquish their privacy rightsby having those individuals enter the unit. Secondly, it also makes good sensethat giving people sufficient time to respond to voluntarily open the door wouldbe preferable to a breach, which might trigger a violent response.

And so it’s for those reasons that the Court rules.

(Id.:43-47.)

IV.

ARGUMENT

A. THE ICA GRAVELY ERRED IN (1) VACATING THE CIRCUIT COURT'SORDER GRANTING NAEOLE’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS; (2) RULING THATTHE CIRCUIT COURT WRONGLY CONCLUDED THAT, ON THE FACTS OFTHIS CASE, THE POLICE FAILED TO ALLOW NAEOLE A REASONABLEAMOUNT OF TIME TO RESPOND TO THEIR DEMAND FOR ENTRY; AND(3) HOLDING THAT (a) NAEOLE WAS AFFORDED A REASONABLEAMOUNT OF TIME TO RESPOND TO THE POLICE’S DEMAND FORENTRY; and (b) THE CIRCUIT COURT SHOULD HAVE DENIED NAEOLE’SMOTION TO SUPPRESS.

Naeole contends that the ICA gravely erred as explained in the heading above. In short,

the ICA concluded that, on the facts of Naeole’s case, 25 seconds was a reasonable amount of

time for her to have answered the door to avoid the officers’ break-in. (AP:Dkt#51:Mem.Op:6.)

The ICA’s reasoning is fraught with unsupported assumptions which purport to support its legal

conclusions that the police gave Naeole a reasonable time to respond:

8

In this case, although the search warrant was executed at 6:12 a.m., it wasa Friday. Naeole testified she was awake and in her hallway, on her way to thebathroom. The house in which she was living was relatively small, as shown inState’s exhibits 2 and 3. Even before HPD knocked on her front door anddemanded entry, her next-door neighbor’s dogs began barking when the officerswere trying to open the gate on the chain link fence surrounding Naeole’s yard.Enough time had passed to allow Wentling (Naeole’s next-door neighbor) to gofrom his room to his front door, go outside, see the police, hear the police“wrestling with [Naeole’s] front gate,” go back to his room on the other side ofhis house to get his cell phone, go back to his front door, and begin recording thescene on his phone. Officer Roe testified that he knocked on Naeole’s front doorand announced HPD’s presence four times. He received no responses the firsttwo times. After the third time[, he heard a female voice in the residence,couldn’t make out what she was saying, although it appeared to be directed to thepolice. He then did a fourth knock-and-announced, received no response, and thedoor was breached.]

[AP:Dkt#51:Mem.Op:6:6-7 (parentheses and first brackets in original, second brackets and

summarized information added).]

The ICA acknowledges that the warrant was executed at 6:12 a.m., but takes judicial

notice that September 4, 2015 was a Friday. (AP:Dkt#51:Mem.Op:6:6.) The implication is that

Naeole must already have been awake and getting ready for work; however there was absolutely

NO TESTIMONY about the schedule that Naeole kept at that time to permit such a conclusion.

The ICA wrote: “Naeole testified she was awake and in her hallway, on her way to the

bathroom.” (AP: Dkt#51:Mem.Op:6:6.) As stated above, Naeole testified that:

…she had JUST WOKEN UP and was on her way to the bathroom, when she“heard boom, boom, boom, and they were in [her] house already. That’s why[she] was right by the hallway when they came in.” (AP:Dkt#13:Tr.3/6/18:28.)She explained, “Instead of using the bathroom, I walked towards the hallway,‘cause they were in my house already.” (Id.:29.)

[Supra at 6 (capitalization added).] The ICA assumes that Naeole was fully awake, so must have

been cognizant of the police’s knock-and-announce ab initio, such that 25 seconds provided

ample time for her to respond. Naeole testified that she had just woken up; there was no

evidence about her level of alertness (before heading for the bathroom) that would permit the

9

ICA’s assumption that she was fully awake, such that she must have heard the police knocking

from its inception.

The ICA next reasoned: “Even before HPD knocked on her front door and demanded

entry, her next-door neighbor’s dogs began barking when the officers were trying to open the

gate on the chain link fence surrounding Naeole’s yard.” (AP: Dkt#51:Mem.Op:6:6.) Again, the

ICA PRESUMES that the barking of Wentling’s dogs had to have either awoken Naeole or clued

her in on the officers’ presence. That conclusion has no basis in the evidence: Naeole was not

asked whether she heard Wentling’s dogs, what woke her up, or when she woke up. She testified

that she first became aware of the officers’ demand for entry when she was on her way to the

bathroom and they burst through the front door. (AP:Dkt#13: Tr.3/6/18:28.)

The ICA further reasoned that “Enough time had passed to allow Wentling (Naeole’s

next door neighbor) to go from his room to his front door, go outside, see the police, hear the

police “wrestling with [Naeole’s] front gate,” go back to his room on the other side of his house

to get his cell phone, go back to his front door, and begin recording the scene on his phone.”

(AP: Dkt#51:Mem.Op:6:6.) It is undisputed that Wentling was already fully awake, “just

chilling” in his bedroom when he heard his dogs barking (AP:Dkt#19:Tr.1/16/18:9), so he did

not have to “come to” in order to respond. Again, the ICA gravely erred in PRESUMING that

the barking of Wentling’s dogs must have awoken Naeole, absent any evidence to support that

presumption. The ICA concludes that “Naeole was afforded a reasonable amount of time to

respond to HPD’s demand for entry” (AP:Dkt#51:Mem.Op:6:6) by adding impermissible time to

the chaine of events. The time it took “Wentling… to go from his room to his front door, go

outside, see the police, hear the police ‘wrestling with [Naeole’s] front gate,’” should not be

counted because the police had not even begun their knock-and-announce procedures. Since

Wentling obviously did not remain at his front door to see the police break through the front gate

10

and line up at Naeole’s front door, defense reasonably contends that those steps happened during

the time that Wentling returned to his room to retrieve his cell phone. Again, the ICA gravely

erred when it impermissibly counted that time against Naeole in favor of the State’s claim that

she had a reasonable amount of time to respond.

Finally, the evidence is undisputed that the four-round knock-and-announce procedure

took 25 seconds. (AP:Dkt#13:Tr.3/6/18:23-24.) Thus, each round lasted 6.25 seconds. The

circuit court found that there was “no discernable pause between each of the four knock-and-

announce [rounds].” (PC:Dkt#56:FOF/COL/O:5; FOF#10.f.) That finding alone supports the

circuit court’s conclusion that the police did not give Naeole a reasonable amount of time to

respond to the police because they did not pause long enough to be able to hear either activity

inside or a verbal answer. Assuming Naeole was asleep when the four rounds began, her lack of

response to the first two rounds (i.e., 12.5 seconds) was consistent with being awakened by the

knocking. Officer Roe heard a female voice after the third round, but did not wait further to

listen and understand what was said or to see if Naeole (or the other house members) came to the

door. Instead, he commenced immediately with the fourth round and broke down the door

thereafter. Since the police apparently had gotten the occupants’ attention after the third round,

the “wait time” consisted of the 6.25 seconds taken for the fourth round. Under any of the cases

and circumstances cited by the parties and the ICA, 6.25 seconds was an unreasonably short

amount of time for an occupant to respond.

In State v. Garcia, 77 Hawai`i 461, 887 P.2d 671 (App. 1995), the raid occurred at 7:07

p.m.2 when occupants would be expected to be awake, thus more likely to hear a knock-and-

announce demand from its inception. The Garcia court wrote that the trial court found that

roughly ten seconds passed between the end of the knock-and-announce to the forced entry. The

2 (77 Hawai`i at 464, n.1, 887 P.2d at 674, n.1.)

11

Garcia court reasoned that since it necessarily took the officers several seconds to force open the

screen door and kick down the wooden door, the police actually waited “less than ten seconds,”

an unreasonably short amount of time. (77 Hawaii at 468-69, 887 P.2d at 678-79.) In Naeole’s

case, the circuit court’s finding that there was “no discernable pause” between knock-and-

announce rounds meant that the police waited zero seconds before breaking in.

It is obvious that after knocking to get an occupant’s attention in order to gain entry, the

knocker must cease knocking and wait silently by the door for a brief period of time in order to

listen for any response, whether the sound of footsteps or other movement, or a verbal answer. If

the knocker hears a response, as Officer Roe heard a female voice inside in Naeole’s case, he or

she should wait further, rather than continuing to knock-and-announce, which would obscure

hearing further responses.

Based on the facts of the cases cited in Naeole’s answering brief, the defense asserts that

in non-exigent early morning raids (when occupants would be expected to still be sleeping), the

police should wait a minimum of fifteen seconds between knock-and-announce rounds in order

to comply with the reasonability requirement of Hawai`i Constitution Article I, Section 7.

Again, Naeole contends that the ICA gravely erred in vacating the circuit court’s

FOF/COL/O because it misconstrued the unchallenged Findings of Fact in concluding that COLs

#21, #24, #25, and Paragraphs #1 and #2 of the Order were wrong.

V.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing arguments and authorities, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellee

DAWN NAEOLE submits that the ICA’s Memorandum Opinion contains grave errors, the

magnitude of which dictates the need for this Honorable Court’s further review.

12

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai`i, August 12, 2019.

Respectfully submitted,

OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDERJOHN M. TONAKIPUBLIC DEFENDER

BY: /s/Phyllis J. HironakaPHYLLIS J. HIRONAKADEPUTY PUBLIC DEFENDER

ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER/DEFENDANT-APPELLEE

APPENDIX “A”

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Filed May 10, 2019

Û´»½¬®±²·½¿´´§ Ú·´»¼×²¬»®³»¼·¿¬» ݱ«®¬ ±º ß°°»¿´­

ÝßßÐóïèóððððíèïïðóÓßÇóîðïç

ðéæëë ßÓ

APPENDIX “B”

JUDGMENT ON APPEAL

Filed June 17, 2019

Û´»½¬®±²·½¿´´§ Ú·´»¼×²¬»®³»¼·¿¬» ݱ«®¬ ±º ß°°»¿´­

ÝßßÐóïèóððððíèïïéóÖËÒóîðïç

ðéæëè ßÓ

APPENDIX “C”

NOTICE OF EXTENSION TO FILEAPPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Filed June 18, 2019

ÒÑÌ×ÝÛ ÑÚ ÛÈÌÛÒÍ×ÑÒ ÌÑ Ú×ÔÛ ßÐÐÔ×ÝßÌ×ÑÒ ÚÑÎ ÉÎ×Ì ÑÚ ÝÛÎÌ×ÑÎßÎ×

λæ ÝßßÐóïèóððððíèï ó ͬ¿¬» ª­ò Ò¿»±´»

̱ ß´´ ﮬ·»­æ

̸» ®»¯«»­¬ º·´»¼ ±² Ö«²» ïéô îðïçô ¾§ Ü¿©² Ò¿»±´» º±® »¨¬»²­·±² ±º ¬·³» ¬± º·´» ¿°°´·½¿¬·±²

º±® ©®·¬ ±º ½»®¬·±®¿®· ©¿­ ¬·³»´§ ¿²¼ ·­ ¹®¿²¬»¼ò ̸» ¬·³» º±® º·´·²¹ ¬¸» ¿°°´·½¿¬·±² ·­ »¨¬»²¼»¼

º±® ¿² ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ¬¸·®¬§ ¼¿§­ò

ß°°»´´¿¬» Ý´»®µ

Û´»½¬®±²·½¿´´§ Ú·´»¼×²¬»®³»¼·¿¬» ݱ«®¬ ±º ß°°»¿´­

ÝßßÐóïèóððððíèïïèóÖËÒóîðïç

ïïæëë ßÓ