State v. Ikeda ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
15-DEC-2020
08:07 AM
Dkt. 51 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
ROBERT J. IKEDA, Defendant-Appellant
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(HONOLULU DIVISION)
(CASE NO. 1DTC-19-038647)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Leonard and Wadsworth, JJ.)
Defendant-Appellant Robert J. Ikeda (Ikeda) appeals
from the Notice of Entry of Judgment and/or Order and
Plea/Judgment (Judgment), entered October 18, 2019, in the
District Court of the First Circuit, Honolulu Division (District
Court).1 After a bench trial, the District Court convicted Ikeda
1
The Honorable Wilson M.N. Loo presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
of Driving Without a License (DWOL), in violation of Hawaii
Revised Statutes (HRS) § 286-102 (Supp. 2019).2
Ikeda raises a single point of error on appeal,
contending that the evidence was insufficient to support Ikeda's
conviction for DWOL.
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 Ikeda's point of error as follows:
Ikeda contends that, because he testified that he did
not intend to drive illegally, and he did not do so knowingly or
recklessly either, there was insufficient evidence to support the
requisite state of mind to convict him. Ikeda's argument is
2
HRS § 286-102 provides, in relevant part:
§ 286-102 Licensing. (a) No person, except one:
(1) Exempted under section 286-105;
(2) Who holds an instruction permit under section
286-110;
(3) Who holds a limited purpose driver's license,
limited purpose provisional driver's license, or
limited purpose instruction permit under section
286-104.5;
(4) Who holds a provisional license under section
286-102.6;
(5) Who holds a commercial driver's license issued
under section 286-239; or
(6) Who holds a commercial driver's license
instruction permit issued under section 286-236,
shall operate any category of motor vehicles listed in this
section without first being appropriately examined and duly
licensed as a qualified driver of that category of motor
vehicles.
2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
premised on the affirmative defense of ignorance or mistake of
law, which is set forth in HRS § 702-220 (2014), which provides:
§ 702-220 Ignorance or mistake of law; belief that
conduct not legally prohibited. In any prosecution, it
shall be an affirmative defense that the defendant engaged
in the conduct or caused the result alleged under the belief
that the conduct or result was not legally prohibited when
the defendant acts in reasonable reliance upon an official
statement of the law, afterward determined to be invalid or
erroneous, contained in:
(1) A statute or other enactment;
(2) A judicial decision, opinion, or judgment;
(3) An administrative order or administrative grant
of permission; or
(4) An official interpretation of the public officer
or body charged by law with responsibility for
the interpretation, administration, or
enforcement of the law defining the offense.
Ikeda does not contend that his belief that he did not
need a current license was based on "an official statement of the
law" contained in a statute or other enactment, judicial
decision, administrative order, or "official interpretation" of
the law that was subsequently determined to be invalid or
erroneous. See HRS § 702-220. Accordingly, the mistake of law
defense does not apply, and Ikeda's reliance on his (mistaken)
understanding of the law to negate the requisite state of mind
fails. See, e.g., State v. Weeks, CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2015 WL
709599, *1, (Haw. App. Feb. 18, 2015) (SDO) (rejecting
defendant's mistake of law defense that he believed he was not
required to renew his driver's license due to certain enactments,
where he did not contend that such enactments were "afterward
determined to be invalid or erroneous").
3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Ikeda also argues that, unlike the State, he offered
direct evidence as to his mens rea, or lack thereof, at the time
of the offense. Because proving the requisite state of mind by
direct evidence in a criminal case is difficult, proof by
circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences arising from
circumstances surrounding the defendant's conduct is sufficient.
See State v. Stocker, 90 Hawai#i 85, 92, 976 P.2d 399, 406
(1999). "Thus, the mind of an alleged offender may be read from
his acts, conduct and inferences fairly drawn from all the
circumstances." Id. (citations and internal quotation marks
omitted).
Here, the citing officer testified, inter alia, that on
the date of the incident, he saw Ikeda driving, and after the
officer stopped him and asked for his driver's license, Ikeda
produced an expired driver's license. Ikeda, who did not dispute
driving on the date of the incident, or claim any exemptions
under HRS § 286-102, testified that his license expired in 2008
and that he understood an expired license is not a valid license.
We conclude that, viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the State, substantial evidence supports the
reasonable inference that Ikeda intentionally, knowingly, or
recklessly operated a vehicle without a valid license.
4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Accordingly, the District Court's October 18, 2019
Judgment is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, December 15, 2020.
On the briefs:
/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza
William K. Li, Chief Judge
for Defendant-Appellant.
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Loren J. Thomas, Associate Judge
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
City and County of Honolulu, /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
for Plaintiff-Appellee. Associate Judge
5