State v. Evans

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
28-APR-2026
01:36 PM
Dkt. 284 SO
NOS. 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.
BONNY N. EVANS, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
PUNA DIVISION
(CASE NO. 3DTA-24-00238)

and
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
BONNY EVANS, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
PUNA DIVISION
(CASE NO. 3DTC-23-022007)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and Guidry, JJ.)
Defendant-Appellant Bonny N. Evans appeals from two
judgments entered by the District Court of the Third Circuit,
Puna Division on April 25, 2024.1 We affirm.
On April 26, 2023, Evans was cited for driving without
a license in the Traffic Case. She appeared without counsel to
answer the summons. She was referred to the public defender's
office. After several continuances, the return hearing was set
for January 30, 2024. She did not appear. A bench warrant for
contempt of court was issued.

1
The Honorable Jeffrey A. Hawk presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Evans was arrested on February 12, 2024, for the
contempt charge, starting the Contempt Case. She was released
from custody and ordered to appear on March 19, 2024, for
arraignment and plea. Private counsel was appointed because the
public defender's office had a conflict of interest. At the
March 19, 2024 hearing, appointed counsel moved to withdraw
because of a conflict of interest. The motion was granted and
the hearing was continued to April 25, 2024. The court appointed
Pueo K. McGuire-Turcotte to represent Evans.
Evans appeared with McGuire on April 25, 2024, for a
consolidated hearing in the Traffic and Contempt cases. The
State offered, and Evans accepted, a plea agreement. Evans would
plead no contest to the contempt charge and be sentenced to time
served, and the State would dismiss the Traffic Case. The trial
court conducted a colloquy, after which Evans pleaded no contest
to the contempt charge. She was sentenced to one day in jail
with credit for time served. Evans thanked the court. A
judgment was entered in the Traffic Case dismissing the charge of
driving without a license. A judgment was entered in the
Contempt Case finding Evans guilty of contempt of court and
imposing a sentence of one day with credit for time served.
Evans, representing herself, filed a notice of appeal
from the judgments in the Traffic Case and the Contempt Case on
May 24, 2024, creating CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX. Again representing
herself, she filed a duplicate notice of appeal on May 28, 2024,
creating CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX.2 We consolidated the appeals by order
entered on April 2, 2026.
Evans's opening brief states ten points of error but
makes eleven numbered arguments.
(1) Evans contends she was deprived of effective
assistance of counsel because McGuire "allowed" her to plead no
contest to the contempt charge despite knowing she had a
meritorious defense. "The burden of establishing ineffective

2
The duplicate notice of appeal was unnecessary, but timely because
the thirtieth day after entry of the April 25, 2024 judgments was Saturday,
May 25, 2024, and Monday, May 27, 2024 was the Memorial Day holiday. Hawai #i
Rules of Appellate Procedure Rules 4(b) and 26(a).

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

assistance rests with the defendant and can only be met by
demonstrating [that] specific errors or omissions resulted in the
withdrawal or substantial impairment of a meritorious defense."
State v. De Guair, 108 Hawai#i 179, 187, 118 P.3d 662, 670
(2005).
The record does not show that McGuire "allowed" Evans
to plead no contest. The trial court engaged Evans in an
extensive colloquy, during which she acknowledged she wanted to
plead no contest to the contempt of court charge; her mind was
clear; she wasn't under the influence of alcohol, medication, or
illegal drugs; she understood the contempt charge; she was aware
the maximum penalty was thirty days in jail and a $1,000 fine;
and she could plead not guilty and go to trial, cross-examine
anyone testifying against her, call her own witnesses, either
testify in her own defense or not testify and her silence would
not be used against her, and the State would have to prove her
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The trial court then asked her, "So knowing all this
that I've gone over with you, do you still want to enter this no
contest plea?"
Evans answered, "Yes."
"Are you entering the plea of your own free will?"
"Yes," Evans replied.
"Is anyone forcing you to do this?"
"No," said Evans.
The colloquy conformed with Hawai#i Rules of Penal
Procedure (HRPP) Rule 11(c). The trial court found her no
contest plea to be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, and
accepted it, consistent with HRPP Rule 11(e).
Evans does not explain what her defense was, or what
she told McGuire about it. We cannot determine whether it was
potentially meritorious. On this record, we cannot conclude
McGuire was ineffective.
(2) Evans contends the trial court erred by accepting
her no contest plea despite knowing she had "meritorious
defenses." We review a trial court's acceptance of a no contest

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

plea for abuse of discretion. De Guair, 108 Hawai#i at 191, 118
P.3d at 674.
"No contest" is "a type of plea which may be entered
with leave of court to a criminal complaint or indictment by
which the defendant does not admit or deny the charges, though a
fine or sentence may be imposed pursuant to it." Id. at 189, 118
P.3d at 672 (brackets omitted). "[T]here is no requirement that
the court elicit a factual basis for a no contest plea[.]" Id.
at 191, 118 P.3d at 674. The trial court acted within its
discretion by accepting Evans's no contest plea after finding it
was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
(3) Evans contends her plea "was not entered in an
intentional, knowing and voluntary manner" because she only
"somewhat" discussed the charge, and her possible defenses, with
McGuire, whom she claims ineffectively "failed to fully inform
her of the nature of the charge . . . and the possible
defenses[.]"
During their colloquy, Evans told the trial court she
understood the charge of contempt of court. She said she "did
somewhat discuss the charge and defenses" with McGuire. She said
she understood that if she pleaded not guilty and went to trial,
the State would have to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt. She said she still wanted to plead no contest.
The record does not reflect what Evans and McGuire
discussed about the contempt charge and any potential defenses.
On this record, we cannot conclude that McGuire was ineffective,
or that the trial court clearly erred by finding Evans's no
contest plea to be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
(4) Evans contends the trial court erred by conducting
"a woefully inadequate change of plea advisement, a colloquy that
failed to ensure that Evans [sic] No Contest plea was entered in
an intentional, knowing and intelligent manner."
No "change of plea advisement" was necessary because
Evans did not enter a plea before the April 25, 2024 hearing
during which she pleaded no contest. The trial court's colloquy
complied with HRPP Rule 11(c), and its finding that Evans's no

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

contest plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary was not
clearly erroneous. Evans's fourth point of error lacks merit.
(5) Evans contends the colloquy "was prejudicially
incorrect and misleading because it failed to properly account
for prior proceedings and it failed to advise Evans that she
could persist in her not guilty plea."
Evans argues she "already pled not guilty at her
February 12, 2024 arraignment and plea." She did not; she was
referred to the Office of the Public Defender for representation
and given appearance dates. Her fifth point of error lacks
merit.
(6) Evans contends the trial court "erred by failing
to consider documented institutional protection of domestic
violence perpetrator." She cites only to the transcript of the
April 25, 2024 hearing, during which she pleaded no contest to
the contempt charge. Neither her point of error nor her argument
cites to the record where the evidence she claims the trial court
failed to consider can be found. See Hawai#i Rules of Appellate
Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b)(4) and (7). We are not obligated to
search the record for information that should have been provided
by Evans. Haw. Ventures, LLC v. Otaka, Inc., 114 Hawai#i 438,
480, 164 P.3d 696, 738 (2007) (citing Lanai Co. v. Land Use
Comm'n, 105 Hawai#i 296, 309 n.31, 97 P.3d 372, 385 n.31 (2004)
(explaining that an appellate court "is not obligated to sift
through the voluminous record to verify an appellant's
inadequately documented contentions")). We disregard her
argument.
(7) Evans contends the trial court "erred by failing
to hold counsel accountable for express conflict [sic] of
interest." She argues the trial court took "no corrective
action" for what she claims was McGuire's conflict of interest,
but she doesn't specify what corrective action she thinks the
court should have taken. The court granted McGuire's motion to
withdraw and appointed substitute counsel on November 7, 2024.
There was no error.

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(8) Evans contends the trial court "erred by applying
dual standards of procedural compliance." She cites only to the
transcript of the April 25, 2024 hearing, during which she
pleaded no contest to the contempt charge. The transcript does
not support her point or her argument.
(9) Evans contends the trial court "erred by failing
to recognize the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine regarding
license stopper." She claims to have been arrested on
February 9, 2024, based on a "license stopper." But she was
arrested for the contempt charge at issue here on February 12,
2024. She again cites to the transcript of the April 25, 2024
hearing, but it contains no reference to a "license stopper" or
to a February 9, 2024 arrest. Her ninth point of error lacks
merit.
(10) Evans's tenth point of error contends someone
named Van Leer ineffectively represented her by "allowing" the
"improper severance of charges from a single incident into
multiple cases (3DCW-XX-XXXXXXX, 3CPC-XX-XXXXXXX,
3DTA-24-00238/239)[.]" The record does not show that Evans was
represented by an attorney named Van Leer in the proceedings
before the trial court or in these appeals, which only involve
JIMS case nos. 3DTC-23-022007 and 3DTA-24-00238.
Evans's argument refers to consolidation of these
appeals with CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, an appeal from JIMS case
no. 3FDA-XX-XXXXXXX in which Evans petitioned for an order for
protection against Sheldon Waipa. Evans never moved to
consolidate these appeals with CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX. Her tenth point
of error is not supported by the record in the appeals before us.
(11) Evans's eleventh supplemental argument appears
related to her tenth point of error. She does not state "where
in the record the alleged error occurred . . . [or] where in the
record the alleged error was objected to or the manner in which
the alleged error was brought to the attention of the court[.]"
HRAP Rule 28(b)(4). Nor does her argument provide "citations to
the . . . parts of the record relied on." HRAP Rule 28(b)(7).
We disregard her argument.

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

The April 25, 2024 Judgment and Notice of Entry of
Judgment entered in JIMS case no. 3DTC-23-022007 and the
April 25, 2024 Judgment and Notice of Entry of Judgment entered
in JIMS case no. 3DTA-24-00238 are affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, April 28, 2026.

On the briefs:
/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Walter J. Rodby, Presiding Judge
for Defendant-Appellant
Bonny N. Evans. /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Associate Judge
Nathan A. Wersal,
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
County of Hawai#i, Associate Judge
for Plaintiff-Appellee
State of Hawai#i.

7