State v. Krstoth. , 138 Haw. 268 ( 2016 )

*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCWC-14-0001143
09-AUG-2016
09:27 AM
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I
---oOo---
________________________________________________________________
STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
TAKSON KRSTOTH, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
SCWC-14-0001143
CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
(CAAP-14-0001143; CR. NO. 11-1-1293)
AUGUST 9, 2016
RECKTENWALD, C.J., NAKAYAMA, McKENNA, POLLACK, AND WILSON, JJ.
OPINION OF THE COURT BY McKENNA, J.
I. Introduction
Takson Krstoth (“Krstoth”)entered a plea of guilty to one
count of Murder in the Second Degree, in violation of Hawai‘i
Revised Statutes (“HRS”) § 707-701.5 (2014).1 Before sentencing,
1
As it stated at the time of the offense, HRS § 707-701.5 provides
in relevant part that “a person commits the offense of murder in the second
degree if the person intentionally or knowingly causes the death of another
person.”
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
Krstoth requested that the court allow him to withdraw his plea
and go to trial, then filed a motion requesting the same,
asserting that his plea was not entered knowingly,
intelligently, or voluntarily, and that he felt pressured by his
public defender and interpreter to plead guilty. The circuit
court denied the motion and sentenced him to life imprisonment
with the possibility of parole.
Krstoth raises the following question on certiorari:
“Whether the ICA gravely erred in holding that the Circuit Court
did not abuse its discretion in denying Krstoth’s Motion to
Withdraw Plea?”
“[A] more liberal approach is to be taken” when a
defendant moves to withdraw his or her plea prior to sentencing
such that “the motion should be granted if the defendant has
presented a fair and just reason for his request and the State
has not relied upon the guilty plea to its substantial
prejudice.” State v. Jim, 58 Haw. 574, 576, 574 P.2d 521, 523
(1978). Moreover, “[a] ‘language barrier’ between the defendant
and the court is a ‘salient fact’ that puts the trial court on
notice that a defendant’s waiver may be ‘less than knowing and
intelligent.’” State v. Phua, 135 Hawai‘i 504, 513, 353 P.3d
1046, 1055 (2015) (quoting State v. Gomez-Lobato, 130 Hawai‘i
465, 471, 312 P.3d 897, 903 (2013)).
2
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
In this case, the circuit court’s colloquy does not
establish that Krstoth voluntarily, intelligently, and knowingly
entered his plea with an understanding of the nature of the
charge against him and the consequences of his plea. We
therefore vacate the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence, and
remand the case to the circuit court for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
II. Background
A. Circuit Court Proceedings
On September 15, 2011, Krstoth was charged by grand jury
indictment with one count of Murder in the Second Degree.
Deputy Public Defender Edward Harada (“Harada”) was appointed to
represent Krstoth.
On April 16, 2013, Krstoth, present with Harada and court-
appointed Chuukese interpreter Kachusy Silander (“Silander”),
entered a plea of guilty to the charged offense pursuant to a
plea agreement with the State. At the outset, the colloquy
revealed that Krstoth was twenty-two years old, had a tenth
grade education, and did not read or write any English. After
the circuit court accepted Krstoth’s guilty plea, sentencing was
scheduled for July 23, 2013.
On June 25, 2013, however, the circuit court received a
handwritten, ex parte letter from Krstoth, written by someone
for him, which stated:
3
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
To the Honorable Judge Mr. Lee. Hi my name is ____, and I’m
writing in regards to a plea bargain that I agree upon due to
being basically scared to death by my attorney Mr. Edward Harada,
stating to me that if I did in fact even think of taking my case
to trial and lost, that I would spend the rest of my life behind
prison bars or close to it. Laying in my bed at night and
thinking of my children and their future truly rips my heart to
pieces, that I cant [sic] be thier [sic] to guide, love, support,
and share their joy as a father. I’m aware that I’ve signed a
Rule (11) . . . Would you please give me the oppertunity [sic] to
recant my guilty plea so, I can have a fair day in trial? On
July 23, 2013 I will be in your courtroom for my sentencing day.
Your Honor please consider my request. Thank you and God bless.
Sincerely
Mr. T. Krstoth
The circuit court forwarded the letter to Harada.
On September 3, 2013, Harada filed a “Motion to Withdraw as
Counsel and Have Substitute Counsel Appointed” (“motion to
withdraw as counsel”). The attached declaration of counsel by
Harada stated, in relevant part, as follows:
7. On August 27, 2013, I visited Takson Krstoth at
OCCC and had [an interpreter] present to provide
information.
8. I discussed the letter with Mr. Krstoth, and he
made it clear that the words expressed in the letter are
his true words and feelings, but that someone else assisted
him in writing the words out on paper. Mr. Krstoth
affirmed the words and feelings he expressed in his letter
and made several things clear: (a) that he felt pressured
by me to accept the plea bargain offered by the State and
plead “guilty” to the charged offense; (b) that he did not
understand all of his rights he had, including the right to
a trial, because I did not make things clear to him; and
(c) that he does in fact want to withdraw his previously
entered “guilty” plea and have a trial to contest the
charge against him.”
On September 9, 2013, the circuit court granted the motion to
withdraw as counsel and substitute counsel was appointed to
represent Krstoth.
4
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
On April 14, 2014, through his new attorney, Krstoth filed
a “Motion to Withdraw Plea” (“motion to withdraw plea”),
asserting that he was unaware during the change of plea hearing
that he was changing his plea to guilty, the interpreter was not
interpreting what was being said and was merely telling him to
“say yes” or “say no,” he was not informed of the details of the
plea agreement, and he did not authorize his initial counsel
Harada to agree to the plea agreement. On June 10, 2014, the
State filed its memorandum in opposition to Krstoth’s motion.
The State argued that there was nothing in the record to
indicate that Krstoth did not understand the colloquy with the
court or that he was unable to make an intelligent decision at
his change of plea hearing.
At a hearing on the motion to withdraw plea, the circuit
court heard testimony from Krstoth, Silander, and Harada. On
June 17, 2014, the circuit court issued its “Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, and Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to
Withdraw Plea.”2 The circuit court concluded, in relevant part,
as follows:
2
The circuit court actually made few relevant findings, as most of
the “findings” were recitations of testimony, such as finding of fact number
37, which states, “Mr. Silander testified that the Defendant understood his
translations and that he specifically went over the change of plea for line
by line with the Defendant.” This recitation of testimony is not a finding
by the circuit court that Krstoth understood the interpreter’s sight
translations. Dep’t Envtl. Serv. v. Land Use Comm’n, 127 Hawai‘i 5, 15, n.12,
275 P.3d 809, 819, n.12 (2012) (explaining that a recitation of testimony is
not a finding of fact).
5
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
15. The Court finds that the Defendant presented
contradictory testimony evidence and failed to present any
credible evidence establishing plausible and legitimate
grounds for the withdrawal of his guilty pleas.
16. Here, although the Defendant claims that his
plea was not entered knowingly or intelligently since the
interpreter was merely telling the Defendant to “say yes”
or “say no” and that his attorney and the interpreter had
pressured him to plead guilty, the Court finds and
concludes that, based on its examination and consideration
of the entire record in this case, the Defendant knowingly,
intelligently, and voluntarily entered his guilty plea.
17. At the hearing on the Motion, the Defendant
testified to the following: that Mr. Harada and Mr.
Silander discussed the guilty plea form and plea agreement
with him, he knew that he had a choice to plead guilty, and
that no one was pressuring him to change his plea. The
Defendant’s testimony contradicted the claims raised in his
Motion.
18. The transcript of the proceedings shows no
reluctance or hesitancy by the Defendant to enter his plea.
The Defendant answered each question appropriately, never
refused to answer any of the questions, never requested to
stop the proceedings, and never indicated that he did not
understand the proceedings.
19. More importantly, during the Court’s questioning
of the Defendant, the Defendant was asked numerous times
whether he understood what was being told to him and if he
had any questions.
20. The Court finds and concludes that the Defendant
did understand what was being asked on [sic] him since he
did ask the Court a question about the presentence report.
21. The Court further finds and concludes that the
Defendant was aware of his rights, the nature of the
charges against him and the consequences of his pleas
[sic].
22. Moreover, the evidence presented at the hearing
established that on April 9, 2013, Mr. Harada, through Mr.
Silander, went over the change of plea form line by line
with the Defendant at the Oahu Community Correctional
Center (“OCCC”).
23. Since this Court did not hear the Defendant’s
change of plea until April 16, 2013, the Court finds and
concludes that if the Defendant had any serious concerns
and/or questions regarding the plea agreement, he had both
the time and opportunity to raise them with counsel.
. . . .
6
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
25. []Mr. Harada testified that he insisted upon the
use of an interpreter even though the Defendant could
understand some English. Mr. Harada further testified that
he answered all of the Defendant’s questions to the best of
his ability, and that the Defendant at no time informed him
of his desire to reject the plea agreement and proceed to
trial.
26. Therefore, based on the examination and
consideration of the entire record in this case and
considering the testimony presented at the hearing on the
Motion, the Court finds and concludes that the Defendant’s
Motion to Withdraw Plea lacks merit and is hereby denied.
On August 1, 2014, the circuit court issued its Judgment of
Conviction and Sentence, finding Krstoth guilty of Murder in the
Second Degree and sentencing him pursuant to the terms of the
plea agreement to life imprisonment with the possibility of
parole, with credit for time served. On September 29, 2014,
Krstoth appealed the circuit court’s Judgment of Conviction and
Sentence to the ICA.
B. Appeal to the ICA
In his Opening Brief, Krstoth argued that the circuit court
abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw plea
because his testimony that he felt pressured by his attorney and
interpreter to plead guilty and did not understand why he was
pleading guilty constitutes plausible and legitimate grounds for
the withdrawal of his guilty plea.
In its Answering Brief, the State contended that Krstoth
failed to present fair and just reasons to support the motion,
and that the record, including the change of plea colloquy and
7
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
the change of plea form, supports the court’s finding that
Defendant’s plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.
On July 30, 2015, the ICA issued its Summary Disposition
Order, affirming the circuit court’s August 1, 2014 Judgment of
Conviction and Sentence. State v. Krstoth, CAAP-14-1143, at 1
(App. July 30, 2015) (SDO). The ICA first discussed the April
16, 2013 change of plea colloquy, and stated, “There is no
indication that Krstoth was confused or reluctant to enter a
changed plea to the charge.” Krstoth, SDO at 2. The ICA noted,
inter alia, Krstoth’s statements that Harada reviewed the plea
form with him and he did not have any questions, as well as the
circuit court’s explanation of the terms of the plea agreement
and the rights Krstoth would be giving up by pleading guilty.
Krstoth, SDO at 3. The ICA further stated,
Krstoth did question the circuit court as to the meaning of
a ‘pre-sentence diagnosis and report,’ thus indicating that
he knew to ask the court for an explanation when he did not
understand something. The court explained the process and
the report at length to Krstoth. Krstoth appeared
satisfied with the circuit court’s explanation and had no
other questions about the report when asked.
Id.
The ICA also noted Krstoth’s acknowledgement and subsequent
“reaffirm[ation] that no one was threatening him, forcing him or
pressuring him to plead guilty and that he was pleading guilty
of his own free will. Krstoth affirmed that there were no other
promises in return for his guilty plea and that he was satisfied
with his lawyer.” Krstoth, SDO at 4.
8
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
With regard to the June 10, 2014 change of plea hearing,
the ICA stated that “Krstoth’s former attorney and interpreter
both testified that they did not pressure Krstoth to plead
guilty and that it appeared Krstoth understood why he was
pleading guilty.” Id. The ICA then held, “The record in this
case does not support Krstoth’s contention that the circuit
court abused its discretion in denying his ‘Motion to Withdraw
Plea.’” Id.
On September 9, 2015, the ICA issued its Judgment on
Appeal.
III. Standard of Review
The denial of a Hawai‘i Rules of Penal Procedure
(“HRPP”) Rule 32(d) motion to withdraw a plea prior to the
imposition of sentence is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
State v. Merino, 81 Hawai‘i 198, 223, 915 P.2d 672, 697 (1996).
“An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court has clearly
exceeded the bounds of reason or has disregarded rules or
principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a
party litigant.” Id. (citation omitted).
IV. Discussion
A trial judge is constitutionally required to ensure that a
guilty plea is voluntarily and knowingly entered. State v.
Solomon, 107 Hawaiʻi 117, 127, 111 P.3d 12, 22 (2005). “In
determining the voluntariness of a defendant’s proffered guilty
9
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
plea, the trial court ‘should make an affirmative showing by an
on-the-record colloquy between the court and the defendant
wherein the defendant is shown to have a full understanding of
what the plea of guilty connotes and its consequences.’” Id.
(quoting State v. Vaitogi, 59 Haw. 592, 602, 585 P.2d 1259, 1265
(1978)).
It is plain error for a trial judge to accept a defendant’s
guilty plea without an affirmative showing that it was
intelligent and voluntary. Vaitogi, 59 Haw. at 601–02, 585 P.2d
at 1264–65. Further, the validity of a guilty plea must be
explicitly shown on the record. Jim, 59 Haw. at 602, 585 P.2d
at 1265. Because a guilty plea involves the waiver of several
important constitutional rights, including the privilege against
self-incrimination, the right to trial by jury, and the right to
confront one’s accusers, the record must also explicitly
establish a valid waiver of these constitutional rights.
Solomon, 107 Hawai‘i at 127, 111 P.3d at 22.3
3
HRPP Rule 11 (2013) also mandates that the trial court, prior to
accepting any plea, first address the defendant personally in open court and
then determine that the plea is voluntary:
(c) Advice to defendant. The court shall not accept a plea
of guilty or no contest without first addressing the
defendant personally in open court and determining that the
defendant understands the following:
(1) the nature of the charge to which the plea is
offered; and
(2) the maximum penalty provided by law, and the
maximum sentence of extended term of imprisonment,
(continued. . .)
10
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
After a change of plea, “[a] defendant does not have an
absolute right to withdraw his guilty plea[.]” Jim, 58 Haw. at
575, 574 P.2d at 522. Where a motion to withdraw plea under
HRPP Rule 32(d) (2012)4 is presented prior to the imposition of
sentence, however, this court has observed that a “liberal
approach is to be taken, and the motion should be granted if the
defendant has presented a fair and just reason for his request
and the State has not relied upon the guilty plea to its
substantial prejudice.” 58 Haw. at 576, 574 P.2d at 523. This
(. . .continued)
which may be imposed for the offense to which the
plea is offered; and
(3) that the defendant has the right to plead not
guilty, or to persist in that plea if it has
already been made; and
(4) that if the defendant pleads guilty or no contest
there will not be a further trial of any kind, so
that by pleading guilty or no contest the right to
a trial is waived.
. . . .
(e) Insuring that the plea is voluntary. The court shall
not accept a plea of guilty or no contest without first
addressing the defendant personally in open court and
determining that the plea is voluntary and not the result
of force or threats or of promises apart from a plea
agreement. The court shall also inquire as to whether the
defendant’s willingness to plead guilty or no contest
results from any plea agreement.
4
HRPP Rule 32(d) governs the withdrawal of guilty pleas, and
provides, in relevant part, as follows:
A motion to withdraw a plea of guilty or of nolo contendere
may be made before sentence is imposed or imposition of
sentence is suspended; provided that, to correct manifest
injustice the court, upon a party’s motion submitted no
later than ten (10) days after imposition of sentence,
shall set aside the judgment of conviction and permit the
defendant to withdraw the plea.
11
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
court has stated “two fundamental bases of demonstrating ‘fair
and just reasons’ for granting withdrawal of a plea: (1) the
defendant did not knowingly, intelligently or voluntarily waive
his or her rights; or (2) changed circumstances or new
information justify withdrawal of the plea.” State v. Gomes, 79
Hawaiʻi 32, 37, 897 P.2d 959, 964 (1995).
Krstoth argues that the ICA gravely erred in holding that
the record does not support his contention that the circuit
court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw
plea. He contends that his guilty plea was not made knowingly,
intelligently, or voluntarily, and that his testimony provided
fair and just reasons for the withdrawal of his guilty plea.
In this case, the record fails to establish a voluntary,
knowing, and intelligent change of plea. With respect to
Krstoth’s right to a trial, the circuit court engaged in the
following colloquy:
Q Do you understand that you have a right to plead
not guilty and ask for a trial?
A Yes.
Q Do you understand by pleading guilty you’ll be
giving up some rights?
A Yes.
Q I need you to listen up. You have a right to file
motions to challenge the charge. You have a right to a
public and speedy trial which means the prosecutor must
present its case against you as quickly as possible. You
have a right to a jury trial. And what a jury trial is is
twelve people from the community are randomly selected.
They sit in those orange chairs there. They listen to the
evidence, and the jury decides if the evidence is
sufficient to find you guilty.
12
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
You have the right to have the government bring the
witnesses into court to testify in front of you. And
through Mr. Harada you get to question the witnesses. You
have a right to testify in your own behalf or have Mr.
Harada bring witnesses for you to testify for you. And
finally if there was a trial and if you were found guilty,
you have a right to take an appeal to a higher court to see
if there was any mistakes made by this court.
Now those are your rights as you stand there this
morning. Do you understand that?
A Yes.
Q Do you understand by pleading guilty you give up
those rights?
A Yes.
Q Do you understand by pleading guilty I’m going to
find you guilty and sentence you without a trial?
A Yes.
Q Do you understand that after you are sentenced you
cannot change your mind and say that I didn’t like the
sentence so therefore I want my trial?
A Yes.
This record does not establish a valid waiver of Krstoth’s
constitutional right to trial by jury, as required by Solomon.
107 Hawai‘i at 128, 111 P.3d at 23. 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.” Gomez-Lobato,
130 Hawai‘i at 470, 312 P.3d at 902 (citation and emphasis
omitted). In this case, Krstoth has a tenth grade education and
has limited English proficiency. In the change of plea
colloquy, the circuit court merely stated, “You have a right to
a jury trial. And what a jury trial is is twelve people from
the community are randomly selected. They sit in those orange
13
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
chairs there. They listen to the evidence, and the jury decides
if the evidence is sufficient to find you guilty.”
Granted, we have held that a court is not required to give
the full United States v. Duarte–Higareda, 113 F.3d 1000 (9th
Cir. 1997) colloquy in every case, namely, that “(1) twelve
members of the community compose a jury, (2) the defendant may
take part in jury selection, (3) a jury verdict must be
unanimous, and (4) the court alone decides [whether a defendant
is ]guilt[y or not guilty] [] if the defendant waives a jury
trial.” State v. Friedman, 93 Hawai‘i 63, 69, 996 P.2d 268, 274
(2000) (quoting 113 F.3d at 1002). In this case, however, the
record of the change of plea colloquy only mentions the first
factor. The record does not touch on the second, namely,
Krstoth’s right to take part in jury selection. The circuit
court’s statement that the twelve jurors are “randomly selected”
does not mention that the defense, the court and the State are
all involved in selecting a jury. Likewise, the colloquy does
not touch on the third factor, that a jury verdict must be
unanimous. With respect to the fourth factor, that the court
alone decides whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty if the
defendant waives a jury trial, the circuit court informed
Krstoth that he has a right to jury trial, but did not even
mention that he could opt for a bench trial. Especially
considering Krstoth’s education and limited English proficiency,
14
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
this advisement regarding his right to jury trial was clearly
deficient, and does not establish on the record an intelligent,
knowing, and voluntary waiver of his right to jury trial, as
required by Solomon. Thus, the record of the change of plea
colloquy does not establish Krstoth’s waiver of his
constitutional right to a jury trial.
Moreover, the change of plea colloquy is deficient in
several additional ways, which also result in the record failing
to establish a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent change of
plea. The circuit court told Krstoth that if he had a jury
trial, the jury “listen[s] to the evidence, and the jury decides
if the evidence is sufficient to find you guilty.” This
suggests that Krstoth could be found guilty based on
“sufficient” evidence, not evidence proving him guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt. In addition, the colloquy suggests that the
only motions that could be filed on his behalf would be those to
“challenge the charge.” It states that a right to a public and
speedy trial “means the prosecutor must present its case [] as
quickly as possible.” This suggests that the trial itself must
be rushed, and not that the trial must commence within a certain
time frame. Finally, the circuit court actually told Krstoth
that he could not change his mind and ask for a trial after he
was sentenced. This implies that he could change his mind and
15
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
withdraw his plea before he was sentenced, which is precisely
what he tried to do.
In addition, another major deficiency in the colloquy fails
to establish a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent change of
plea based on the record. The circuit court’s colloquy with
respect to Krstoth’s sentence reflects the following:
. . . Five, you’ll be sentenced to a life term of
imprisonment with the possibility of parole. That both you
and the State agree that you’ll serve 15 years as a minimum
sentence before you can be considered for parole.
. . .
Q In addition to the agreement, Mr. Krstoth, I have
told the attorneys that I believe that the minimum sentence
of 15 years is a sufficient amount of time in this case.
This colloquy fails to mention that it is the Hawai‘i
Paroling Authority, and not the circuit court, that
determines the actual minimum sentence that Krstoth would
have to serve before he could be considered for parole.
For those reasons, the record of the colloquy fails to
establish a valid voluntary, knowing, and intelligent
change of plea.5
We note that, overall, the manner in which the circuit
court questioned Krstoth also raises questions regarding whether
Krstoth voluntarily, intelligently, and knowingly entered his
plea with an understanding of the nature of the charge against
5
Having ruled based on these obvious deficiencies in the change of
plea colloquy, we do not address Krstoth’s assertion that he was pressured
into changing his plea.
16
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
him and the consequences of his plea. Specifically, the circuit
court received one word responses from Krstoth and found that
these responses indicated his understanding that he had a choice
to plead guilty. “A ‘language barrier’ between the defendant
and the court is a ‘salient fact’ that puts the trial court on
notice that a defendant’s waiver may be ‘less than knowing and
intelligent.’” Phua, 135 Hawai‘i at 513, 353 P.3d at 1055
(quoting Gomez-Lobato, 130 Hawai‘i at 471, 312 P.3d at 903
(holding that questions asked during a colloquy about a jury-
waiver form were not sufficient to establish that a defendant
knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to a
jury trial where a language barrier existed and the court
elicited only one word “yes” or “no” responses rather than
determining whether the defendant clearly understood the
constitutional right he was giving up)). As we stated in Phua,
“[i]n some circumstances, it may be necessary for a trial court
to ask follow up questions to confirm the defendant’s
understanding of” rights he may be waiving. 135 Hawai‘i at 514,
353 P.3d at 1056.
In this case, the record does not establish that Krstoth
knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his or her
rights by changing his plea, as required by law. Therefore,
“fair and just reasons” existed for granting a withdrawal of his
plea. Moreover, the State did not argue that it would be
17
*** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER ***
substantially prejudiced by the withdrawal of the plea.
Accordingly, the circuit court’s denial of Krstoth’s motion to
withdraw plea constituted an abuse of discretion, and the ICA
erred in affirming the circuit court’s Judgment of Conviction
and Sentence.
V. Conclusion
We therefore vacate the ICA’s September 9, 2015 Judgment on
Appeal and the circuit court’s August 1, 2014 Judgment of
Conviction and Sentence, and remand to the circuit court for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
William Li /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
for petitioner
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
Loren J. Thomas
for respondent /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
/s/ Michael D. Wilson
18