State v. Oili ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
22-DEC-2021
09:14 AM
Dkt. 61 SO
NOS. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, AND CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
BRONSON OILI, Defendant-Appellant
(CASE NO. 3PC141000474)
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
BRONSON OILI, Defendant-Appellant
(CASE NO. 3PC111000388)
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
BRONSON OILI, Defendant-Appellant
(CASE NO. 3CPC-XX-XXXXXXX)
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Nakasone and McCullen, JJ.)
In this consolidated appeal,1 Defendant-Appellant
Bronson Oili (Oili) appeals from the (1) Order of Resentencing
(Case No. 3PC141000474), entered on October 19, 2020; (2) Amended
Order of Resentencing (Case No. 3PC111000388), entered on
October 20, 2020; and (3) Order of Resentencing (Case No. 3CPC-
1
Oili filed Notices of Appeal on November 16, 2020 in CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX,
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, and CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX. This Court consolidated the appeals
under CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX on November 26, 2021.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
XX-XXXXXXX), entered on October 19, 2020 [collectively,
Resentencing Orders] by the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit.2
Oili contends that the Circuit Court abused its
discretion by (1) denying his request to continue the
resentencing matters in light of a potential settlement on an
unrelated pending criminal charge and (2) failing to articulate
its reasoning for imposing a consecutive sentence.
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 Oili's points of error as follows.
On June 4, 2019, the Plaintiff-Appellee State of
Hawai#i filed its Motion to Revoke Probation after Oili's
conviction on three previous criminal matters. The Circuit Court
issued its Finding of Facts, Conclusions of Law and Order
Granting Motion for Revocation of Probation and to Resentence.3
Therein the Circuit Court found that Oili knowingly, voluntarily,
and intelligently stipulated that he had violated the terms of
his probation by, inter alia, (1) failing to report to his
probation officer on May 21, 2019, (2) being non-clinically
discharged from substance abuse treatment, and (3) failing to
submit a urine sample which constituted a positive finding. The
Circuit Court thus concluded that Oili inexcusably failed to
comply with substantial terms and conditions of probation.
2
The Honorable Peter K. Kubota presided.
3
The Motion for Revocation of Probation and to Resentence was granted
by The Honorable Jeffrey A. Hawk.
2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
On October 16, 2020, the Circuit Court held a
resentencing hearing on the three criminal matters and a pending
criminal case in Case No. 3CPC-XX-XXXXXXX.4 At the hearing, Oili
requested a continuance on the resentencing matter to negotiate
an agreement on the pending charge in Case No. 3CPC-XX-XXXXXXX.
The Circuit Court denied the request and imposed sentence on the
three underlying criminal matters. The Circuit Court sentenced
Oili to five years in Case No. 3PC141000474, five years in Case
No. 3CPC-XX-XXXXXXX, and ten years in Case No. 3PC111000388. The
ten-year term was ordered to run consecutively with the five-year
terms, for a total of fifteen years.
Oili argues that the Circuit Court abused its
discretion because it did not state its reasoning as to why it
imposed consecutive sentences. The State agrees and recommends
the case be remanded for resentencing. We have considered the
State's concession of error, and upon our review, the concession
is supported both by the record in this case and the law. See
State v. Eduwensuyi, 141 Hawai#i 328, 337, 409 P.3d 732, 741
(2018) (explaining that the State's concession, "although not
binding on an appellate court, is entitled to great weight"
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). We hold that
the Circuit Court abused its discretion because it failed to
state on the record the reasons why it imposed a consecutive
sentence.
The appellate courts review a sentencing decision under
the abuse of discretion standard.
4
In pending Case No. 3CPC-XX-XXXXXXX, Oili was charged with Reckless
Endangering in the First Degree, in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes ( HRS)
§ 707-713(1) (1993).
3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
[A] sentencing judge generally has broad discretion in
imposing a sentence. . . . And, "[g]enerally, to constitute
an abuse it must appear that the court clearly exceeded the
bounds of reason or disregarded rules or principles of law
or practice to the substantial detriment of a party
litigant."
State v. Hussein, 122 Hawai#i 495, 503, 229 P.3d 313, 321 (2010)
(citations omitted).
HRS § 706-668.5 (Supp. 2015) provides courts with the
discretion to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences. See
id. at 502, 229 P.3d at 320. This statute requires the court to
consider the sentencing factors enumerated in HRS § 706-606
(1993).5 But, the court is not required to explain its
conclusions as to every factor listed in HRS § 706-606. See Lewi
v. State, 145 Hawai#i 333, 350–51, 452 P.3d 330, 347–48 (2019).
It is presumed that a sentencing court will have considered all
factors before imposing concurrent or consecutive terms of
imprisonment under HRS § 706-606. Id. However, the court must
5
The court, in determining the particular sentence to be imposed,
shall consider:
(1) The nature and circumstances of the offense and the
history and characteristics of the defendant;
(2) The need for the sentence imposed:
(a) To reflect the seriousness of the offense, to
promote respect for law, and to provide just
punishment for the offense;
(b) To afford adequate deterrence to criminal
conduct;
(c) To protect the public from further crimes of the
defendant; and
(d) To provide the defendant with needed educational
or vocational training, medical care, or other
correctional treatment in the most effective
manner;
(3) The kinds of sentences available; and
(4) The need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among
defendants with similar records who have been found guilty
of similar conduct.
HRS § 706-606.
4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
"state on the record at the time of sentencing the reasons for
imposing a consecutive sentence." Hussein, 122 Hawai#i at 510,
229 P.3d at 328.
Here, the Circuit Court's basis for proceeding with
sentencing can be summarized as Oili's history of "getting in
trouble in [] 2014, then 2017 and now again 2020." After delving
into Oili's probation violations and ongoing misconduct, the
Circuit Court stated, "[b]ut as far as sentencing, um, it's time
already. You know, you had chances. It's time so I'm going to
impose the sentence." (Emphasis added.) A reasonable inference
from this statement is that Oili's prior acts were used by the
Circuit Court to find that it would not delay imposing a
sentence. But, the Circuit Court did not discuss any factors or
link its statement with the statutory factors to satisfy Hussein.
See e.g., State v. Kong 131 Hawai#i 94, 101, 315 P.3d 720, 727
(2013) (holding that the circuit court did not abuse its
discretion because its statement identified the specific facts or
circumstances within the range of statutory factors the court
considered, and provided the conclusion drawn by the court from
consideration of all the facts that pertained to the statutory
factors); State v. Garcia, 133 Hawai#i 510, 331 P.3d 488,
No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2014 WL 3796889 at *9-10 (App. Jul. 31,
2014) (mem.) (noting that the circuit court could have done a
better job at stating its reasons for a consecutive sentence but
sufficiently met the requirements of Hussein).
Instead, the Circuit Court's only reference to why a
consecutive sentence was appropriate was because of a prior
agreement that Oili and the State reached regarding his
5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
supervised release. This reasoning does not reflect any analysis
of the statutory factors.
In conclusion, we hold that the Circuit Court did not
state its reasoning as required by Hussein to (1) identify the
facts and circumstances within the range of statutory factors it
should have considered and (2) confirm that the decision was
deliberate, rational, and fair. See Lewi, 145 Hawai#i at 350–51,
452 P.3d at 347–48. Having held that the Circuit Court abused
its discretion in resentencing Oili, we need not decide the
remaining point of error.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Order of
Resentencing, entered on October 19, 2020; Amended Order of
Resentencing, entered on October 20, 2020; and Order of
Resentencing entered on October 19, 2020, in the Circuit Court of
the Third Circuit are vacated and this case is remanded for
resentencing consistent with this Summary Disposition Order.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, December 22, 2021.
On the briefs: /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Presiding Judge
Evans M. Smith,
for Defendant-Appellant. /s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Associate Judge
Shannon M. Kagawa,
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
County of Hawai#i, Associate Judge
for Plaintiff-Appellee.
6