King v. Kobayashi ( 2020 )

Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX
29-JUN-2020
01:51 PM
SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI
ALEXANDRA KING, Petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE BLAINE KOBAYASHI, Judge of the District Court of
the Second Circuit, State of Hawaiʻi, Respondent Judge,
and
STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(CASE NO. 2DTC-18-003207)
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
Upon consideration of petitioner Alexandra King’s
petition for writ of mandamus, the respondent State of Hawaiʻi’s
answer to the petition for writ of mandamus, petitioner’s reply
in support of the petition for writ of mandamus, the respective
supporting documents, and the record, it appears that, in light
of the nature of the charged offenses, petitioner’s pleas to the
charges in the initial complaint in the underlying proceeding,
which the district court accepted, were not flawed by the lack
of an advisement as to restitution. See HRS § 706-646
(restitution statute); HRS § 701-107(5) (“A violation does not
constitute a crime.”); State v. Domingo, 121 Hawaiʻi 191, 194-95,
216 P.3d 117, 120-21 (App. 2009) (“Absent evidence that
Domingo’s conduct [(e.g., failing to remain at the scene of an
accident, failing to give information, and failing to render
reasonable assistance)] caused or aggravated Tomlin’s injuries
or caused Tomlin’s death, no causal relationship between
Domingo’s criminal act and a victim’s losses is shown and
restitution may not be imposed pursuant to HRS § 706-646.”).
Further, there was no basis to sua sponte set aside the pleas
over petitioner’s objection. See People v. Hardin, 67 A.D.2d 12(N.Y.S.2d 1979) (stating that, in the absence of fraud, the
court may not set aside a plea without the defendant’s consent).
Extraordinary relief is therefore warranted under the
circumstances of this case. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawaiʻi 200,
204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (where a court has discretion to
act, mandamus will not lie to interfere with or control the
exercise of that discretion, even when the judge has acted
erroneously, unless the judge has exceeded his or her
jurisdiction, has committed a flagrant and manifest abuse of
discretion, or has refused to act on a subject properly before
2
the court under circumstances in which he or she has a legal
duty to act). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of
mandamus is granted in part and the district court is directed
to reinstate petitioner’s pleas to the initial complaint and
dismiss the pending Third Amended Complaint. 1 To the extent
petitioner is requesting that this court dismiss her case in its
entirety, the petition is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, June 29, 2020.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
/s/ Michael D. Wilson
1
Also, to the extent the Second Amended Complaint has not been
dismissed, the district court shall also dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint.
3