State v. Gomez ( 2016 )

***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***
Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCWC-12-0000642
11-JAN-2016
08:12 AM
SCWC-12-0000642
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII
________________________________________________________________
STATE OF HAWAII,
Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
CRAIG A. GOMEZ,
Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
(CAAP-12-0000642; CASE NO. 1DTC-12-040907)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Craig A. Gomez seeks
review of the Intermediate Court of Appeals’ (ICA) April 13,
2015 Judgment on Appeal, entered pursuant to its February 27,
2015 Summary Disposition Order, which vacated the District Court
of the First Circuit’s (district court) June 20, 2012 Judgment
***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***
and remanded the case for a new trial. 1 The district court found
Gomez 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
Hawaii Revised Statutes § 291E-62 (2007 & Supp. 2010).
On certiorari, Gomez contends, inter alia, that the
ICA erred in holding that the district court properly permitted
the State to amend the charge against Gomez to allege the
required mens rea for the offense. Gomez 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 recently held in
State v. Schwartz 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.” State v. Schwartz, No.
SCWC-10-0000199, 2015 WL 7370086, at *21 (Haw. Nov. 19, 2015).
Accordingly, the ICA correctly concluded that the district court
properly permitted the State to amend the charge.
We further conclude that Gomez’s remaining claims lack
merit.
1
The ICA vacated the district court judgment and remanded the case
for a new trial based on the district court’s apparent erroneous reliance on
a judgment of a prior conviction, filed January 24, 2012, in finding that
Gomez’s license was revoked at the time of the charged offense, which
resulted in “uncertainty over whether the district court would have made the
same finding based on other properly admitted evidence.”
2
***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the ICA’s Judgment on Appeal
is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, January 11, 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