State v. Patrick

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
20-SEP-2022
07:46 AM
Dkt. 54 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MACHELLE LEA PATRICK, Defendant-Appellant
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
LAHAINA DIVISION
(CASE NO. 2DTC-06-000182)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Leonard and Wadsworth, JJ.)
Defendant-Appellant Machelle Lea Patrick (Patrick)
appeals from the September 18, 2020 Order and Notice of Entry of
Order (Order Denying Motion to Correct) entered by the Wailuku
Division of the District Court of the Second Circuit (District
Court).1 The Order Denying Motion to Correct denied Patrick's
August 31, 2020 Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence and Revoke
Restitution (Motion to Correct).
On March 19, 2006, Patrick was issued a citation (2DTC-
06-000182), apparently after she collided with a street light in
1
The Honorable Blaine J. Kobayashi presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Lahaina. Patrick was thereby cited for Driving Motor Vehicle
Without Valid Driver's License (DWOL), in violation of Hawaii
Revised Statutes (HRS) § 286-102 (Supp. 2005);2 Failure to Return
Plates Upon Termination of Insurance Policy (Plates), in
violation of HRS § 431:10C-114 (1987); and No Motor Vehicle
Insurance (NMVI), in violation of HRS § 431:10C-104 (1997). On
August 28, 2006, Patrick pled no contest to DWOL, pursuant to a
2
HRS § 286-102 (Supp. 2005) provides, in pertinent part:
§ 286-102 Licensing. (a) No person, except one
exempted under section 286-105, one who holds an instruction
permit under section 286-110, one who holds a provisional
license under section 286-102.6, one who holds a commercial
driver's license issued under section 286-239, or one 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.
(b) A person operating the following category or
combination of categories of motor vehicles shall be
examined as provided in section 286-108 and duly licensed by
the examiner of drivers:
. . . .
(3) Passenger cars of any gross vehicle weight
rating, buses designed to transport fifteen or
fewer occupants, and trucks and vans having a
gross vehicle weight rating of fifteen thousand
pounds or less; and
(4) All of the motor vehicles in category (3) and
trucks having a gross vehicle weight rating of
fifteen thousand one through twenty-six thousand
pounds.
. . . .
(c) No person shall receive a driver's license
without surrendering to the examiner of drivers all valid
driver's licenses in the person's possession. All licenses
so surrendered shall be returned to the issuing authority,
together with information that the person is licensed in
this State; provided that with the exception of driver's
licenses issued by any Canadian province, a foreign driver's
license may be returned to the owner after being invalidated
pursuant to issuance of a Hawaii license; and provided
further that the examiner of drivers shall notify the
authority that issued the foreign license that the license
has been invalidated and returned because the owner is now
licensed in this State. No person shall be permitted to
hold more than one valid driver's license at any time[.]
2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
plea agreement entered into with Plaintiff-Appellee the State of
Hawai#i (State), which also included restitution "as determined
by Special Services Branch (SSB) (06-24748)," dismissal of the
other two counts (Plates and NMVI), and the State's agreement not
to "add on inattention."3 "06-24748" appears to refer to another
case involving Patrick that was pending before the District
Court, but those proceedings are not part of the record on appeal
in this case. On September 18, 2006, the Monetary Restitution
Program (MRP) filed a restitution recommendation in the amount of
$2,046.25.
On November 6, 2006, Patrick failed to appear for a
hearing on the issue of restitution, and a bench warrant was
issued. Patrick appeared in custody on January 5, 2007, where
she was ordered to appear at a continued restitution hearing on
January 24, 2007. On January 24, 2007, Patrick objected to the
requested restitution amount of $2,046.25, and a contested
restitution hearing was set for February 7, 2007. Patrick failed
to appear at the hearing on February 7, 2007, and a bench warrant
was issued.
On June 22, 2007, the State filed a Motion to Strike
Restitution Hearing (Motion to Strike). It appears that the
State argued that Patrick agreed to pay restitution in the amount
3
The District Court noted, at the September 18, 2020 hearing on the
Motion to Correct, that it appeared the plea agreement was negotiated, but
that the record before it was unclear with respect to exactly what transpired
at the time of the plea agreement.
3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
determined by the SSB as part of the plea agreement on August 28,
2006. On June 25, 2007, the Office of the Public Defender (OPD)
moved to withdraw as counsel and the State's Motion to Strike was
continued to August 8, 2007. On August 8, 2007, a bench warrant
was issued after Patrick failed to appear for the rescheduled
restitution hearing.
On November 28, 2007, Patrick appeared in District
Court, and the OPD's motion to withdraw as counsel was granted.
The State's Motion to Strike was continued to December 12, 2007.
The December 12, 2007 hearing was postponed until January 2,
2008, because Patrick arrived late, and by the time of her
arrival, standby counsel had left.
At the January 2, 2008 hearing, the State's Motion to
Strike was granted, Patrick agreed to pay restitution in the
amount of $2,046.25, and the District Court ordered Patrick to
pay a minimum of $25 per month due the first week of each month.
Patrick appeared on April 2, 2008, for a proof of compliance
hearing, and paid $25 towards restitution with future payments
adjusted to $20 per month by the fourth week of each month. The
payment amount was later adjusted further to $15 per month on
August 12, 2009, and lowered again on November 8, 2010 to $10 per
month, due by the fourth week of each month.
Between April 2, 2008, and June 10, 2020, several proof
of compliance hearings were held. During this period, Patrick
made payments to reduce the amount of restitution owed, and
converted fines owed to community service, which she then
4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
completed. However, Patrick failed to appear for multiple
compliance hearings, which led to the issuance of bench warrants,
and she appeared in custody multiple times pursuant to those
warrants. Court minutes reflect that, as of April 1, 2015, the
remaining restitution due was $1,625.00. It appears that no
payments have been made since.
On June 10, 2020, Patrick appeared in custody, again
represented by the OPD.4 Patrick made an oral motion to reduce
or waive restitution due to her indigent status, which the
District Court denied. At that hearing, Patrick agreed to a free
standing restitution order.
Thereafter, Patrick filed the Motion to Correct, which
was denied after a hearing. An appeal was timely filed after the
entry of the Order Denying Motion to Correct.
Patrick raises a single point of error on appeal
contending that the District Court erred in entering the Order
Denying Motion to Correct, with three sub-arguments: (1)
Patrick's DWOL did not cause the damage to the light pole, thus
restitution was wrongly ordered; (2) the Motion to Correct should
have been granted because the District Court's practice of
setting compliance hearings to enforce restitution was an abuse
of discretion, a waste of judicial resources, and criminalize
individuals who lack the capacity to pay restitution; and (3)
Patrick's agreement to pay restitution (a) could not take
4
Although a District Court order stemming from that hearing notes
that Patrick appeared in custody, it does not reflect why she was in custody.
No transcript was ordered for this hearing.
5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
precedence over the illegality of a sentence that ordered
restitution for a non-causal offense and (b) may be impossible to
fulfill, depending on Patrick's circumstances.
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 Patrick's point of error as follows:
(1) Patrick argues that restitution was erroneously
ordered because her DWOL did not cause damage to the light pole.
This argument was raised roughly 14 years after Patrick entered
into the plea agreement, which included Patrick's agreement to
pay restitution in exchange for dismissal and forbearance on
other charges. There is no record of what "caused" the accident,
what representations were made or what stipulations or agreements
took place at the August 28, 2006 hearing, or what transpired in
the other case that is referenced in conjunction with the amount
of restitution that was determined to be due. To the extent that
Patrick argues that the State failed to establish sufficient
evidence that there was a causal relationship between her driving
without a license and the damage to the light pole, we conclude
that this argument was waived.
Patrick does not argue that there cannot, as a matter
of law, be a causal relationship between the conduct of driving
without a license and damage to the light pole, but cites a
Florida Supreme Court case, which this court cited in State v.
Domingo, 121 Hawai#i 191, 195, 216 P.3d 117, 121 (App. 2009), for
6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
the proposition that the District Court erred in ordering
restitution in Patrick's case. However, in the Florida case,
the Florida Supreme Court held that:
the mere occurrence of an accident while the defendant is
engaged in the criminal offense of driving with a suspended
license does not as a matter of law mandate the award of
restitution for the damages arising out of the accident. An
award of restitution requires the existence of a causal
relationship between the criminal offense of driving with a
suspended license and the accident that resulted in the
damages or loss.
Schuette v. State, 822 So.2d 1275, 1284 (Fla. 2002).
Patrick argues that, here, the State failed to prove
such a casual relationship. However, as detailed in a lower
court's (quashed) decision, the evidentiary record in the
Schuette case established that the victim was a pedestrian who
shouted obscenities at the defendant, who was initially a
passenger in the vehicle; the defendant took the wheel after the
pedestrian pepper sprayed the driver. The defendant then turned
the vehicle around, entered the wrong lane on a divided roadway
and traveled the wrong way on a one-way road, in the direction of
the victim. When the victim entered the road, the defendant
struck the victim with the vehicle. Schuette v. State, 782 So.2d
935, 936 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 2001) (quashed). In light of
that evidentiary record, the Florida Supreme Court concluded that
no causal relationship was established between the defendant's
driving with a suspended license and the victim's loss. 822
So.2d 1275 at 1284. As noted above, there is no such evidentiary
record here. Schuette does not support a determination that
7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
driving without a license can never be a substantial factor in a
victim's losses.
As noted by the State, the legislative history of Act
214 (1967),5 which enacted HRS chapter 286, including HRS § 286-
102, indicates that the chapter's purpose was to allow the State
to "initiate, coordinate and accelerate every available means to
decrease the fatalities, injuries, damages and losses resulting
from highway traffic accidents." 1967 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 214,
§ 1 at 257. Reading Act 214 in conjunction with HRS § 286-102,
supports a conclusion that HRS § 286-102 was not intended solely
as a regulatory statute, but was enacted with the express purpose
of reducing damages and losses caused by highway traffic
accidents. There are numerous scenarios in which a person's
violation of HRS § 286-102 could result in a victim's losses
under HRS § 706-646.
Accordingly, we reject Patrick's first argument.
(2) Patrick argues that the District Court erred in
denying the Motion to Correct because its practice of setting
compliance hearings to enforce restitution is an abuse of
discretion and a waste of judicial resources, and criminalizes
individuals who lack the capacity to pay restitution. Patrick
5
1967 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 214, § 1 states:
SECTION 1. Declaration of purpose. Deaths of persons
and injuries to them and damage to property with the other
losses suffered on account of highway traffic accidents are
of grave concern to the State and its citizens as well as to
the federal government. The legislature finds and declares
that it is in the public interest that the State initiate,
coordinate and accelerate every available means to decrease
the fatalities, injuries, damages and losses resulting from
highway traffic accidents.
8
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
relies on, inter alia, State v. Gaylord, 78 Hawai#i 127, 154, 890
P.2d 1167, 1194 (1995), where the supreme court held that the
imposition of consecutive sentences merely to ensure restitution
payments was an abuse of discretion. Here, however, Patrick was
not given a harsher sentence in order to enforce restitution.
Patrick repeatedly failed to appear for scheduled hearings, bench
warrants were issued as a result, and she was arrested pursuant
to those warrants. Patrick does not argue, and points to nothing
in the record to support, that she was impermissibly held in
custody pursuant to those bench warrants. At no point was
Patrick imprisoned, or her sentence otherwise made more severe,
as a result of her failure to complete payment of the ordered
restitution.
Patrick further argues that her failure to pay the
restitution "for whatever reason" over the last 14 years
demonstrates her inability to pay it. However, Patrick fails to
establish a sufficient factual record to support a current
inability to make payments of $10 per month, and has not provided
any authority requiring the District Court to grant her relief
based on this argument.
(3) Patrick argues that she is entitled to relief
because there can be no plea bargain to an illegal sentence.
While Patrick's legal proposition is not wrong, as discussed
above, Patrick has not established that restitution constituted
an illegal sentence here. Therefore, we conclude that she is not
entitled to relief based on this argument.
9
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Finally, Patrick argues that the District Court erred
in entering the Order Denying Motion to Correct because the court
entered the order without first inquiring as to Patrick's
personal and financial circumstances to determine her ability to
pay. Patrick cites no authority for this argument and we find
none. We conclude that it is without merit.
For these reasons, the District Court's September 18,
2020 Order Denying Motion to Correct is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, September 20, 2022.
On the briefs: /s/ Lisa M. Ginoza
Chief Judge
Phyllis J. Hironaka,
Deputy Public Defender, /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
for Defendant-Appellant Associate Judge
Gerald K. Enriques, /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Associate Judge
for Plaintiff-Appellee
10