CourtListener 10873381

Gesamter Gesetzestext

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
10-JUN-2026
10:21 AM
Dkt. 84 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CURRENA TOMIE MEYERS, Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NORTH AND SOUTH KONA DIVISION
(CASE NO. 3DTA-24-00558)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and Guidry, JJ.)

Defendant-Appellant Currena Tomie Meyers (Meyers)

appeals from the District Court of the Third Circuit's (district

court) September 20, 2024 "Findings Of Fact and Conclusions of

Law and Order Denying [Meyers'] Motion to Strike Proof of

Compliance Hearings Filed August 7, 2024" (Compliance Order). 1

1 The Honorable David R. Harada-Stone presided over entry of the
Compliance Order, and the "Amended Judgment and Notice of Entry of Amended
Judgment as to Drug Demand Reduction Fee" (Amended Judgment), filed on
December 19, 2024. The Honorable Ann S. Datta presided over the entry of the

(continued . . .)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

On July 10, 2024, Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawaiʻi

(State) filed an Amended Complaint charging Meyers with

operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant (OVUII)

as a highly intoxicated driver, in violation of Hawaii Revised

Statutes (HRS) § 291E-61(a)(1), (a)(3), and/or (b)(4) (2020 &

Supp. 2023) (Count 1), and operating an uninsured motor vehicle

in violation of HRS § 431:10C-104(a) (2019) (Count 2). Meyers

entered into a plea agreement with the State, whereby Meyers

pled no contest to the Count I charge of OVUII, but without the

highly intoxicated driver enhancement, and the State dismissed

Count 2 with prejudice. The district court accepted Meyers'

plea and entered its Judgment on August 5, 2024.

The Judgment ordered Meyers to complete a substance

abuse assessment, classes, and any recommended treatment, and to

pay, inter alia, a $250 drug demand reduction fee. The fee was

"taken under advisement for 1 year and subject to be waived on

condition of successful completion of required substance abuse

assessment, classes, and any recommended treatment." Meyers was

ordered to appear on October 17, 2024, for a proof of compliance

hearing.

2(. . . continued)

"Judgment and Notice of Entry of Judgment" (Judgment), filed on August 5,
2024.

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

On August 7, 2024, Meyers moved to strike the

compliance hearing. The State opposed the motion to strike.

The district court denied the motion to strike, and entered the

Compliance Order; Meyers appealed from the Compliance Order,

creating this appeal.

At the October 17, 2024 proof of compliance hearing,

the district court found that Meyers had completed the substance

abuse assessment, but still needed to complete the outpatient

program and classes recommended by the assessment. The district

court continued the hearing to December 19, 2024 to allow Meyers

additional time to complete the classes. On November 29, 2024,

the Division of Driver Education (DDE) reported that Meyers had

completed the required substance abuse outpatient program and

classes. On December 19, 2024, following the continued hearing,

the district court entered its Amended Judgment. The Amended

Judgment stated that: Meyers "is in full compliance with

driver's education requirements as well as fines and fees.

Court waived the $250.00 drug demand reduction fee that was

previously taken under advisement. Court will take no further

action."

On appeal, Meyers raises a single point of error,

contending that the district court erred "by creating an

unauthorized probation-type sentencing disposition with endless

proof-of-compliance hearings to ensure [Meyers] followed through

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

on the substance abuse assessment and classes." (Formatting

altered.) Upon careful review of the record, briefs, and

relevant legal authorities, and having given due consideration

to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties,

we address Meyers' point of error as follows.

We first address the matter of our jurisdiction over

the appeal. Ditto v. McCurdy, 103 Hawaiʻi 153, 157, 80 P.3d 974,

978 (2003). As in State v. Rivero-Garcia, No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX,

2026 WL 1582067, at *2-3 (Haw. App. June 3, 2026), we conclude

that we have jurisdiction, pursuant to the collateral order

doctrine, over the district court's Compliance Order. Here, the

Compliance Order "fully dispose[d] of the question at issue,"

State v. Baranco, 77 Hawaiʻi 351, 353-54, 884 P.2d 729, 731-32

(1994), of whether the district court was authorized to order

compliance review hearings under HRS § 291E-61(b) (2020), which

states that "[a] person committing the offense of [OVUII] shall

be sentenced without possibility of probation or suspension of

sentence[.]" The Compliance Order also "resolve[d] an issue

completely collateral to the merits of the case," i.e., Meyers'

conviction and sentencing. Baranco, 77 Hawaiʻi at 354, 884 P.3d

at 732. And the Compliance Order "involve[d] important rights

which would be irreparably lost if review had to await a final

judgment" because Meyers' appeal from the Compliance Order could

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

become moot once a sentence finalizing the drug demand reduction

fee was entered. Id.

Turning to the merits, we further conclude, as we did

in Rivero-Garcia, that the district court exceeded its authority

under HRS § 291E-61(h) (2020) by requiring Meyers to appear for

compliance review hearings.

HRS § 291E-61 (Supp. 2023) governs the district

court's referral of a person convicted of OVUII for substance

abuse assessment and treatment by a certified substance abuse

counselor. The statute provides that "[a]ll costs for

assessment and treatment shall be borne by the offender." HRS

§ 291E-61(h). DDE shall submit the counselor's report and

recommendations to the court, and the court "shall require the

offender to obtain appropriate treatment if the counselor's

assessment establishes the offender's substance abuse or

dependence." Id. The statute does not, however, authorize the

district court to set compliance review hearings, akin to terms

and conditions of probation, which would "upend[] the statutory

process." State v. Fay, 154 Hawaiʻi 305, 308, 550 P.3d 1163,

1166 (2024).

HRS § 706-650 (Supp. 2016) requires the district court

to impose the $250 drug demand reduction assessment "when the

person has been found guilty of an offense under section . . .

291E-61." HRS § 706-650(2)(e) (2014). This statute provides

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

that, "[i]f the person undergoes a substance abuse treatment

program at the person's expense, the court may waive or reduce

the amount of the monetary assessment." HRS § 706-650(5) (Supp.

2016).

After accepting Meyers' no contest plea to OVUII, the

district court could, as one possible alternative, have

sentenced Meyers to complete a substance abuse assessment and

any recommended treatment, and to pay the statutory drug demand

reduction assessment, to be reimbursed under HRS § 706-650(5) 2 if

and when DDE reported that no substance abuse treatment was

recommended or that Meyers had paid for and completed

recommended treatment. That would have been a final sentence,

with no post-judgment compliance hearing required.

For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the Compliance

Order.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, June 10, 2026.

On the briefs: /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Presiding Judge
Benjamin E. Lowenthal,
Sara K. Haley, /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Deputy Public Defenders, Associate Judge
for Defendant-Appellant.
/s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
Charles E. Murray, III, Associate Judge
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
County of Hawaiʻi,
for Plaintiff-Appellee.

2 Reimbursement could be paid from the drug demand reduction
assessments special fund established under HRS § 706-650(3) (2014).