State v. Trulock

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
09-MAY-2023
08:03 AM
Dkt. 59 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
MATTHEW JOHN TRULOCK, Defendant-Appellant
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
HONOLULU DIVISION
(CASE NO. 1DTA-21-01315)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, and Wadsworth and Chan, JJ.)
Defendant-Appellant Matthew John Trulock (Trulock)
appeals from the Notice of Entry of Judgment and/or Order and
Plea/Judgment (Judgment), entered on December 22, 2021, in the
District Court of the First Circuit, Honolulu Division (District
Court).1/ For the reasons explained below we affirm the Judgment,
which dismissed the case against Trulock without prejudice.
On July 26, 2021, Trulock was charged by Complaint with
Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of an Intoxicant (OVUII),
in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 291E-61(a)(1)
and/or (a)(3) (2020). The Complaint was signed by a deputy
prosecuting attorney, but was not subscribed under oath by a
complainant or accompanied by a declaration in lieu of affidavit.
On December 10, 2021, the Hawai#i Supreme Court decided
State v. Thompson, 150 Hawai#i 262, 500 P.3d 447 (2021), which
held that a penal summons or arrest warrant cannot be issued on
1/
The Honorable Alvin K. Nishimura presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER
the basis of a complaint that is not compliant with HRS § 805-1.2/
Id. at 267-69, 500 P.3d at 452-54; see State v. Mortensen-Young,
152 Hawai#i 385, 393-95, 526 P.3d 362, 370-72 (2023) (construing
Thompson).
On December 15, 2021, Trulock filed a Notice of Non-
Appearance and Objection to Defective Complaint (Notice and
Objection), which sought dismissal of the Complaint based on the
Thompson ruling. The Notice and Objection further stated in
part:
Defendant objects to the fatally defective complaint against
him and will not be appearing in any further proceedings in
this matter until such time as: the prosecution dismisses
this case; files a complaint that complies with HRS § 805-1;
and causes Defendant to be served with a valid penal
summons. Defendant also objects to any further substantive
progress, discussion, or actions taken in this matter during
his absence.
The State filed a memorandum in opposition to the Notice and
Objection.
On December 22, 2021, the District Court held a hearing
on the Notice and Objection, which the court treated as a motion
to dismiss the Complaint. After considering the matter, the
District Court granted the motion to dismiss. The court ruled
that the Complaint failed to meet the requirements of HRS § 805-
1, which the court construed as "apply[ing] to all criminal
complaints regardless of whether [the] State uses the complaint
to seek [a] penal summons or arrest warrant."
2/
At the time of the alleged offense here and in Thompson, HRS
§ 805-1 (2014) provided, in pertinent part:
When a complaint is made to any prosecuting officer of the
commission of any offense, the prosecuting officer shall examine
the complainant, shall reduce the substance of the complaint to
writing, and shall cause the complaint to be subscribed by the
complainant under oath, which the prosecuting officer is hereby
authorized to administer, or the complaint shall be made by
declaration in accordance with the rules of court. . . . Upon
presentation of the written complaint to the judge in whose
circuit the offense allegedly has been committed, the judge shall
issue a warrant, reciting the complaint and requiring the sheriff,
or other officer to whom it is directed, except as provided in
section 805-3, to arrest the accused and to bring the accused
before the judge to be dealt with according to law; and in the
same warrant the judge may require the officer to summon such
witnesses as are named in the warrant to appear and give evidence
at trial. The warrant may be in the form established by the usage
and practice of the issuing court.
2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER
The court then heard argument as to whether the
dismissal should be with or without prejudice. The State
contended that the dismissal should be without prejudice.
Trulock contended that the dismissal should be with prejudice,
arguing, among other things, that "[t]his is one step above a
traffic citation," and "the reason that trial has not occurred is
discovery issues in this case."
After considering the parties' positions, the District
Court ruled as follows:
The court dismisses without prejudice. I think the
Estencion3/ factors weigh in favor of dismissal without.
This is a serious offense.
The case hasn't been prosecuted as a result of the
pandemic. I mean, as everybody knows, we've been not having
trials for a while because of the pandemic situation.
In the meantime . . . we have handled a lot of
discovery issues. As counsel knows, I think, [defense
counsel], I don't know exact number, but you filed many,
many discovery motions, which we did address a lot of it
during this time.
But, in any event, the delay is not caused by any
reason from the State. So the court dismisses without
prejudice and grants leave for the State to refile if they
so choose.
(Footnote added.) The same day, i.e., December 22, 2021, the
District Court entered the Judgment, granting the motion to
dismiss without prejudice.
On January 24, 2022, the District Court issued its
"Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order" (FOFs/COLs).
The FOFs/COLs made clear that the case was dismissed without
prejudice based on the supreme court's ruling in Thompson and the
District Court's conclusion that under HRS § 805-1, all criminal
complaints must be supported by an affidavit or declaration
signed by a complainant. No other reason was given for the
dismissal without prejudice.
On appeal, Trulock contends in part that "[t]he case
should have been dismissed with prejudice and/or the decision to
dismiss without prejudice was supported by insufficient and/or
incorrect findings." Relatedly, Trulock contends that the
3/
State v. Estencion, 63 Haw. 264, 625 P.2d 1040 (1981).
3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER
District Court erred in applying the speedy trial provisions of
Hawai#i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 48 and in failing to
consider alleged discovery violations by the State.
The State agrees with Trulock that "the [D]istrict
[C]ourt's findings of fact do not clearly articulate the basis
for dismissing the case without prejudice[,]" and the case should
be remanded "to permit the [D]istrict [C]ourt to make the
requisite findings of fact supporting the dismissal without
prejudice."
Although great weight is granted when the prosecution
confesses error, Territory v. Kogami, 37 Haw. 174, 175 (Haw.
Terr. 1945), "appellate courts have an independent duty 'first to
ascertain that the confession of error is supported by the record
and well-founded in law and second to determine that such error
is properly preserved and prejudicial.'" State v. Veikoso, 102
Hawai#i 219, 221-22, 74 P.3d 575, 577-78 (2003) (quoting State v.
Hoang, 93 Hawai#i 333, 336, 3 P.3d 499, 502 (2000)). "In other
words, 'a confession of error by the prosecution is not binding
upon an appellate court[.]'" Id. at 222, 74 P.3d at 578 (quoting
Hoang, 93 Hawai#i at 336, 3 P.3d at 502).
Initially, we note that the Hawai#i Supreme Court
recently held in Mortensen-Young that HRS § 805-1 (2014) applies
only to criminal complaints used to obtain a penal summons or
arrest warrant. 152 Hawai#i at 393-95, 526 P.3d at 370-72. In
other cases, such as the OVUII prosecutions at issue in
Mortensen-Young, HRPP Rule 7 provides the proper framework to
analyze the sufficiency of complaints. In Mortensen-Young, the
supreme court held that the trial court improperly dismissed the
complaints against the appellees, reasoning that the charging
instruments had complied with HRPP Rule 7(d), and were thus
sufficient to initiate prosecutions for OVUII. Id. at 399, 526
P.3d at 376.
Here, as in Mortensen-Young, HRS § 805-1 is
inapplicable because the Complaint was not used to obtain a penal
summons or arrest warrant. The Complaint set forth a plain and
concise statement of the essential facts, was signed by the
prosecutor, and referenced the statute that Trulock allegedly
4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER
violated, as required by HRPP Rule 7(d). Therefore, the
complaint was sufficient to initiate the subject prosecution, and
the District Court erred in dismissing the case based on
Thompson.
Nevertheless, the State did not appeal from the
Judgment, and Trulock does not challenge the dismissal of the
Complaint. The only issue before this court is whether the
District Court erred in dismissing the Complaint without (as
opposed to with) prejudice or in failing to make adequate
findings to support its decision.
In arguing that the District Court should have
dismissed the case with prejudice, Trulock points to alleged
errors and miscalculations by the District Court in applying HRPP
Rule 48 and in failing to consider alleged discovery violations
by the State. However, Trulock provides no authority supporting
his argument that these issues are relevant in determining
whether a complaint dismissed under Thompson for non-compliance
with HRS § 805-1 — and not dismissed for Rule 48 or discovery
violations — should be dismissed with or without prejudice. Cf.
Thompson, 150 Hawai#i at 269-70, 500 P.3d at 454-55 (ruling that
the family court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing
without prejudice a complaint that did not comply with HRS § 805-
1). Even were Trulock to point to such authority, it would not
apply here, where HRS § 805-1 itself was inapplicable and the
Complaint was sufficient to initiate the OVUII prosecution. See
supra.
In arguing that the District Court failed to make
adequate findings to support its decision to dismiss without
prejudice, Trulock relies on State v. Hern and State v.
Estencion, which require trial courts to consider various factors
and to clearly articulate the reasons for dismissing a case with
or without prejudice under HRPP Rule 48. See Hern, 133 Hawai#i
59, 63-64, 323 P.3d 1241, 1245-46 (App. 2013), abrogated on other
grounds by State v. Nicol, 140 Hawai#i 482, 494 n.12, 403 P.3d
259, 271 n.12 (2017); Estencion, 63 Haw. at 268-69, 625 P.2d at
1043-44; see also State v. Michaeledes, 152 Hawai#i 217, 223, 524
P.3d 1241, 1247 (2023) (construing Estencion). However, Hern and
5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER
Estencion appear to be irrelevant, because the District Court
granted Trulock's motion to dismiss under Thompson, not under
HRPP Rule 48. Cf. Michaeledes,152 Hawai#i at 223, 524 P.3d at
1247 (ruling that Estencion and its progeny were irrelevant where
the defendant moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under
HRPP Rule 12(b)(1), not under HRPP Rule 48). Neither Trulock nor
the State cite any applicable authority for the proposition that
trial courts must provide a basis for dismissing a complaint
without prejudice when the dismissal is for non-compliance with
HRS § 805-1. Even were Trulock or the State to point to such
authority, a dismissal with prejudice plainly would not be
appropriate here, where HRS § 805-1 was inapplicable and the
Complaint was sufficient to initiate the OVUII prosecution. See
supra; Michaeledes,152 Hawai#i at 223, 524 P.3d at 1247. Put
another way, since the sole basis for dismissal of the Complaint
was erroneous, it would make no sense to preclude the State from
returning to court and refiling the Complaint, if it so chose.
For these reasons, the Notice of Entry of Judgment
and/or Order and Plea/Judgment, entered on December 22, 2021, in
the District Court of the First Circuit, Honolulu Division, is
affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 9, 2023.
On the briefs:
/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Richard L. Holcomb Presiding Judge
(Holcomb Law LLLC)
for Defendant-Appellant.
/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Donn Fudo, Associate Judge
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
City & County of Honolulu,
for Plaintiff-Appellee. /s/ Derrick H.M. Chan
Associate Judge
6