State v. Jameson

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
07-AUG-2025
07:48 AM
Dkt. 46 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
TELLY JAMESON, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX)

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

Telly Jameson appeals from the Judgment of Conviction
and Probation Sentence entered by the Circuit Court of the First
Circuit on May 4, 2023.1 We affirm.
Jameson was charged by felony information with Assault
in the Second Degree in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes
(HRS) § 707-711(1)(m). The last sentence of the information
alleged: "The injury in this charge relates to the pain or
contusion of [the complaining witness (CW)]'s left face area."
CW's statement was submitted in a sealed exhibit to the
information. It stated: "I have a lump and small cut on the
right side of my face near the temple."

1
The Honorable Shirley M. Kawamura presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Jameson pleaded not guilty. Trial began on January 17,
2023. Before jury selection the State moved to strike the last
sentence from the information, or to amend "left face area" to
"right face area." Jameson objected to the motion as untimely.
He agreed "that all of the discovery in this case did indicate
injuries to the right side" of CW's face. The trial court cited
Hawai#i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 7(f) and stated:

the Court does find that there is no prejudice to the
substantial rights of the defendant as all discovery did
indicate that injuries were to the right side of her face.
However, given the untimeliness of the motion, the Court may
consider a continuance of the trial so that counsel would
have time to prepare addition -- additional time to prepare,
if needed.

The State had informed Jameson's counsel of the motion
in advance. Jameson's counsel said, "at this point we are not
asking for a continuance." This exchange then took place:

THE COURT: Okay. So the defense is ready. You have
prepared for trial. Pursuant to the discovery you were
given, which all indicates to the right side of the face,
and although you initially object to the amendment itself,
given that the Court's -- I'm offering you the remedy of a
continuance so that you may fully brief the motion, first of
all, and second of all prepare for trial, and you are
declining that remedy, you prefer to proceed to trial today?
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: That's correct, Your Honor.

THE COURT: And you have discussed this with
Mr. Jameson, that is his preference also?

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Is that correct, Mr. Jameson?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. You folks are ready to proceed to
trial?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. With that, the State's motion to
strike surplusage is denied in part, granted in part. The
striking of surplusage is denied, however, in the
alternative, I will allow the State to file an amended
felony information reflecting injuries to the right face
area rather than the left.

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

An amended felony information was filed on January 17,
2023. A jury found Jameson guilty as charged. He was sentenced
to four years probation conditioned on serving one year in jail
with credit for time served. A free-standing order of
restitution was also entered. This appeal followed.
Jameson argues: HRS § 806-9 makes laws applying to an
indictment also apply to an information; HRPP Rule 7(f)(1)
prohibits amending indictments; HRPP Rule 7(f)(1) must also
prohibit amending an information. He did not argue this to the
trial court. We review for plain error. Plain error will apply
"to correct errors that seriously affect the fairness, integrity,
or public reputation of judicial proceedings, to serve the ends
of justice, and to prevent the denial of fundamental rights."
State v. Ishimine, 151 Hawai#i 375, 378–79, 515 P.3d 192, 195–96
(2022) (brackets omitted).
Interpretation of a statute or court rule presents a
question of law. State v. James, 153 Hawai#i 503, 510, 541 P.3d
1266, 1273 (2024). We begin with the language of the statute or
rule. Id. If the language is plain and unambiguous, our sole
duty is to give effect to its plain and obvious meaning. Id.
HRS § 806-9 (2014) provides:

All provisions of law applying to prosecutions upon
indictments, to writs and process therein, and the issuing
and service thereof, to motions, pleadings, trials, and
punishments, or the passing or execution of any sentence,
and to all proceedings in cases of indictment, whether in
the court of original or appellate jurisdiction, shall in
the same manner and to the same extent as near as may be,
apply to information and all prosecutions and proceedings
thereon.

(Emphasis added.)
HRPP Rule 7(a) allows a defendant to be charged by
indictment, superseding indictment, information, complaint, or
under certain circumstances, by a citation and "oral recitation
of the essential facts constituting the offense[.]" HRPP
Rule 7(f)(1) provides:

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

The court may permit a charge other than an indictment to be
amended at any time before trial commences if substantial
rights of the defendant are not prejudiced.

In State v. Thompson, No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2024 WL
4043727 (Haw. App. Sept. 4, 2024) (SDO), cert. rejected,
No. SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX, 2025 WL 233202 (Haw. Jan. 17, 2025), we
held:

The plain language of [HRS § 806-9], "as near as may be,"
clearly recognizes that there are situations where the law
of indictments will not apply to informations. See James,
153 Hawai#i at 510, 541 P.3d at 1273. Thus, HRS § 806-9
does not require that an information be treated exactly the
same as an indictment in all respects, and explicitly
recognizes that there may be situations where the law of
indictments cannot be applied in the exact same manner to
informations, and the "as near as may be" language covers
those situations.

Id., 2024 WL 4043727, at *3. We also noted:

HRPP Rule 7(f)(1)'s sole exception to allowing liberal pre-
trial amendment of charging instruments is where a grand
jury indictment is at issue. This makes sense as "an
indictment is an action of the grand jury and not subject to
change by either the court or prosecution, except to correct
formalistic errors[.]" Barbara E. Bergman et al., Wharton's
Criminal Procedure § 5:15 (14th ed. 2002). In State v. Kam,
we explained that: "Where the State's pre-trial amendment of
a charge in a complaint does not prejudice a defendant's
substantial rights, there seems to be little justification
for denying the amendment and good reasons for granting it.
Permitting the amendment prevents delay, avoids
inconvenience to the parties, and conserves judicial
resources." 134 Hawai#i 280, 286-87, 339 P.3d 1081, 1087-88
(App. 2014), aff'd, No. SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX, 2016 WL 770253
(Haw. Feb. 25, 2016) (SDO).

Id.
We reiterated our holding in Thompson earlier this
year, in State v. Michaeledes, No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2025 WL
53170, at *3 (Haw. App. Jan. 9, 2025) (SDO). The analysis also
applies here. Jameson offers no substantive argument that his
rights were prejudiced. We decline to recognize plain error.

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

The Judgment of Conviction and Probation Sentence
entered by the Circuit Court on May 4, 2023, is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, August 7, 2025.

On the briefs:
/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Emmanuel G. Guerrero, Presiding Judge
for Defendant-Appellant.
/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Benjamin Rose, Associate Judge
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
City and County of Honolulu, /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
for Plaintiff-Appellee. Associate Judge

5