State v. Huff

vmv

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPOR'I`S AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. 28335

lN THE lNTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAIT

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
GALl HUFF, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FR©M THE DISTRlCT COURT OF THE FIRST ClRCUlT
HONOLULU DIVlSlON
(HPD TraffiC NOS. lDTC-06-O4l423 & l648l4OPl)

SUMMARY DlSPOSlTION ORDER
(By: Nakamura, C.J., Foley and Fujise, JJ.)

Defendant-Appellant Gali Huff (Huff) appeals from the
two judgments entered on November l5, 2006, in the District Court
of the First Circuit, Honolulu Division (district court),l
convicting taxi cab driver Huff of two violations of Revised
Ordinances of Honolulu (ROH) § 12-4.4(b) (l983).2 In Case No.
l648l4OPl (Kalakaua case), Huff was cited for parking a taxi cab
on Kalakaua Avenue while waiting for a fare to hire by Honolulu
Police Officer Michael Hunt (Officer Hunt) on October 20, 2005.
ln Case No. lDTC-06-O4l423 (University case), Huff was cited for
parking a taxi cab on University Avenue while waiting for a fare
to hire by Honolulu Police Officer Robert Canady (Officer Canady)
on May 26, 2006. On appeal, Huff argues there was insufficient

evidence to rebut her explanations of her conduct.

1 The Honorable Hilary Benson Gangnes presiding.

2 Sec. 12~4.4 Vehicles awaiting fare.

(a) The drivers of licensed vehicles, standing at any
public place, shall obey the orders of the police as to
alignment.

(b) EXcept as otherwise provided in Section l2-4.2, no
person, owning or having the control of any licensed vehicle
for hire shall stand or park, or permit the standing or
parking of any such vehicle on any public highway while
waiting for a fare to hire such vehicle.

(Sec. l2-4.4, R.O. l978 (l983))

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

At trial, Officer Hunt testified that on October 20,
2005, he saw a taxicab stopped in the front of the Outrigger
Waikiki on Kalakaua Avenue, a City and County of Honolulu road.
The dome light of the taxicab was on and the rest of the
vehicle's lights were off and the engine was not running.

Officer Hunt observed the vehicle for about two minutes and
during that time he saw the driver looking at the hotel, looking
around, and then looking back at the hotel. Based upon his six
years experience working in Waikiki, the actions of the driver
indicated that the driver was "trying to catch somebody‘s
attention." The driver was Huff. There was no taxi stand in the
area.

After observing her for two minutes, Officer Hunt
approached Huff and asked her for her license. Huff started the
cab and attempted to leave. Officer Hunt cited Huff. Officer
Hunt testified that a cab driver could wait while a customer went
to an ATM for cash. However, during the two minutes Officer Hunt
watched Huff and for the additional two or three minutes of his
encounter with her, no one approached Huff to pay the cab fare

and he did not see anyone that might have been waiting to pay

_ Huff.

Officer Canady testified that on May 26, 2006, at
approximately l:3O a m., he observed a taxi parked on University
Avenue, a City and County of Honolulu road, in front of Magoo's
Bar. He observed the driver looking back and forth in such a
manner that it appeared to him that she was trying to make eye
contact with people exiting the bar to attract a fare. Officer
Canady observed Huff parked in front of Magoo's for two minutes.
He then approached Huff and asked her what she was doing. Huff
said that she was just filling out paperwork. Officer Canady
issued the citation.

Huff testified that in the Kalakaua case, she had just
dropped off a customer and he told her to wait while he went to

get some money. In the University case, Huff testified that she

v had just dropped off a fare and was filling out her trip record.

2

NOT FOR PUBLICA'I`ION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

The district court found Huff guilty on both counts
holding that "based on the credible testimony of the two officers
that the State has met its burden of proving the defendant
committed these violations in both cases."

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
prosecution and giving full deference to the fact finder‘s right
to determine credibility and to make reasonable inferences of
fact from the evidence, there was substantial evidence to support
the convictions in both cases. See State v. Baxlev, 102 HawaFi
130, l33, 73 P.3d 668, 671 (2003) see also State V. NaeOle, 62
HaW. 563, 565, 617 P.2d 820, 823 (l980); State V. Mark, 120
HaWaifi 499, 516, 210 P.3d 22, 39 (App. 2009). If the district
court believed the testimony of the officers rather than the
testimony of Huff, as it was entitled to do, the evidence
supported the conclusion that in both the Kalakaua case and the
University case, Huff was parked while waiting for a fare to hire
her in violation of ROH § 12~4.4(b).

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgments of
conviction in Case No. 1648l4OPl and Case No. 1DTC-06-O4l423
entered on November 15, 2006, in the District Court of the First
Circuit, Honolulu Division are affirmed.

DATED; H@n@lulu, Hawai‘i, march 3, 2010.

On the briefs:

Phyllis J. Hironaka, r/};’
Deputy Public Defender, / -1;zzhé;b9¢azo-

for Defendant-Appellant. Chief Judge

,__
Anne K. Clarkin, 1 * _
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
City and County of Honolulu, Associate Judge

for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Q.¢..,,JJ»@@~.~»

Associate Judg