State v. Gaeta

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
27-AUG-2025
07:56 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.
ASHLEY VINCENT GAETA, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 3CPC-XX-XXXXXXX)

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

Ashley Vincent Gaeta appeals from the First Amended
Judgment of Conviction and Probation Sentence entered by the
Circuit Court of the Third Circuit on August 7, 2023, nunc pro
tunc May 17, 2023.1 Gaeta challenges the denial of his motion
for deferred acceptance of no contest plea (DANC). We affirm.
A grand jury indicted Gaeta on two counts of Sexual
Assault in the Second Degree in violation of Hawaii Revised
Statutes (HRS) § 707-731(1)(a) and one count of attempted Sexual
Assault in the Second Degree in violation of HRS §§ 705-500 &
707-731(1)(a). The indictment alleged that on May 15, 2021,
Gaeta sexually penetrated the complaining witness (CW) with his
fingers and by cunnilingus, and attempted to have vaginal
intercourse with her. Gaeta pleaded not guilty. A Complaint

1
The Honorable Robert D.S. Kim presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Superseding Indictment added a fourth count for Sexual Assault in
the Fourth Degree in violation of HRS § 707-733(1)(b). The
fourth count alleged that Gaeta exposed his genitals to CW.
On January 9, 2023, Gaeta pleaded no contest to count 4
under a plea agreement. He also moved for DANC. Before
sentencing Gaeta, the Court heard from CW. She described being
"raped" and stated, "I reported my assault to the police, had a
rape kit conducted on me which resulted in a DNA match to the
perpetrator, have worked alongside with the prosecution and dealt
with the -- with the pain of this assault for a year and a half."
Defense counsel expressed surprise, noting the State
had represented during the pretrial conference that CW "was okay
with" the plea agreement. Counsel felt he and Gaeta had been
"sandbagged."
The Court asked CW if she had been consulted about the
plea agreement.
CW replied, "Yes, I was."
The Court asked, "And did you communicate to the State
your position?"
"Yes, I did."
"And what was their response?"
"That they were gonna do what they thought was best
despite my urgency to have them either take it to trial or submit
a different plea that had him registering as a sex offender and
it being on his record and him going to some form of counseling
as a part of the new deal."
The Court stated, "I was present when certain
representations were made so I'm gonna . . . continue it." The
Court wanted to hear from the deputy prosecuting attorney who had
attended the pretrial conference.
The case was recalled on January 17, 2023. Gaeta moved
to withdraw his plea. The Court set aside Gaeta's no-contest
plea and maintained the trial date.
The case was again called on May 17, 2023, for change
of plea and sentencing. Gaeta again pleaded no contest to

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

count 4 (sex assault 4) and moved for DANC. The deputy
prosecuting attorney stated:

We've been before the Court before on a change of plea.
What I think is different today this morning that
brings the parties back before the Court is that the terms
of the agreement this morning are different than last time
in that they specifically speak to some of the concerns that
the victim expressed to our office that she did not like
about the last agreement, and I believe that we've taken
steps to take those concerns into consideration in coming to
the agreement that brings us here today.
. . . .

Much of the agreement that comes before the Court
today is actually agreed upon. . . .
. . . .

What is not agreed upon and the sole disputed issue
before the Court today is the defendant's motion for the
deferred acceptance of his plea, and the State is opposing
that request and asking the Court to enter judgment and
conviction today.

CW addressed the Court:

Your Honor, I'm asking for the bare minimum of what
needs to happen in order to prevent him from doing this
again. I'm not asking for him to plead guilty instead of no
contest, for him to be held to the original charge of eight
felonies or for him to serve any time. I'm only asking for
it to stay on his record.

Gaeta's allocution was short:

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Gaeta, anything you wish to say
before I pass sentence?
THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor. I know I'll get my
probation done, everything taken care of and you'll never
see me again if that -- if that is provided by your
decision. I'll be happy to get everything done. You won't
ever see me back here.

The Court denied Gaeta's DANC motion. The State's
motion to nolle prosequi counts 1, 2, and 3 of the Complaint
Superseding Indictment was granted. A Judgment of Conviction and
Probation Sentence was entered on May 17, 2023. The First
Amended Judgment of Conviction and Probation Sentence was entered
on August 7, 2023, nunc pro tunc May 17, 2023.
3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

In this appeal Gaeta contends the Circuit Court abused
its discretion when it denied his DANC motion by improperly
considering (1) conduct excluded by the offense to which Gaeta
pleaded; (2) Gaeta's purported failure to take responsibility or
demonstrate remorse despite his no contest plea; and (3) CW's
purported trauma, which included allegations of conduct to which
Gaeta did not plead and other extraneous allegations about
Gaeta's character.
HRS § 853-1(a) (2014) provides:

Upon proper motion as provided by this chapter:
(1) When a defendant voluntarily pleads guilty or
nolo contendere, prior to commencement of trial,
to a felony, misdemeanor, or petty misdemeanor;
(2) It appears to the court that the defendant is
not likely again to engage in a criminal course
of conduct; and

(3) The ends of justice and the welfare of society
do not require that the defendant shall
presently suffer the penalty imposed by law,

the court, without accepting the plea of nolo contendere or
entering a judgment of guilt and with the consent of the
defendant and after considering the recommendations, if any,
of the prosecutor, may defer further proceedings.

We review the denial of a motion for DANC for abuse of
discretion. State v. Satoafaiga, 150 Hawai#i 406, 415, 504 P.3d
324, 333 (2022). "An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial
court has clearly exceeded the bounds of reason or has
disregarded rules or principles of law or practice to the
substantial detriment of a party litigant." Id.
The Circuit Court acknowledged that Gaeta was eligible
for a DANC under HRS § 853-1(a):

No question he's -- he's qualified to get the
deferral. It's up to me as to whether or not you will get
it, and, you know, although you pled no contest I don't
really get any remorse over what has happened in this case.

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

Gaeta argues the Circuit Court erred by considering his
supposed failure to demonstrate remorse. But "a court generally
can consider a defendant's lack of remorse in the sentencing
context[.]" Satoafaiga, 150 Hawai#i at 421, 504 P.3d at 339; see
also HRS § 706-606(1) (2014) (sentencing court shall consider
"characteristics of the defendant").
Gaeta argues the Circuit Court erred by considering
conduct excluded by the offense to which Gaeta pleaded, and CW's
purported trauma and allegations about Gaeta's character. CW
described her physical and emotional challenges "since [Gaeta]
drugged and raped me."

I did everything the doctors and the police asked me to do.
I underwent incredibly invasive tests, have had to suffer
through the painful traumatic reminder of what he did each
time I went in to get the STD [Gaeta] gave me frozen off my
genitals, and I have subjected myself to retelling the
details of my most vulnerable moment to numerous doctors,
police officers, lawyers from the district attorney's office
and anyone else who could help me find justice.

Gaeta's alleged sexual penetration of CW with his
fingers and by cunnilingus is not included in HRS § 707-733(1)(b)
(knowingly exposes genitals), the charge to which he pled. In
Satoafaiga the supreme court held:

just as a court may not penalize a defendant for conduct
with no support in the record, it cannot hold a defendant
responsible for conduct that they could not logically have
committed, given their offense of conviction. Consequently,
we hold that the trial court abused its discretion by
considering sexual penetration, and remand for
reconsideration of the DANC motion.

150 Hawai#i at 421, 504 P.3d at 339.
But the supreme court also stated:

We do not mean to imply that any time a defendant
pleads to a lesser-included offense in exchange for the
dismissal of a greater one, the court may not consider the
circumstances leading to the greater charge. For example,
if the heinous or aggravated nature of the acts committed
points to a sentence on the upper end of the permitted
sentencing range, the judge may consider it.

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

Id.; see also HRS § 706-606(1) (sentencing court shall consider
"circumstances of the offense").
Here, the circumstances under which Gaeta was charged
with exposing his genitals to CW — "the greater charge" — was
count 3, his attempt to have vaginal intercourse with her by
compulsion. That is consistent with the State's recitation of
the factual basis supporting count 4 during the May 17, 2023
change-of-plea hearing:

On May 15th, 2021, within Kona, in the County and
State of Hawai#i, defendant Ashley Vincent Gaeta knowingly
exposed his genitals, specifically his penis to another
person, [CW], and the circumstances under which this conduct
occurred caused [CW] alarm and caused her to fear for bodily
-- of -- and caused her to fear bodily injury.

When the Circuit Court explained its denial of Gaeta's
DANC motion it acknowledged the holding in Satoafaiga:

The Court is not considering the statement of sexual
penetration as in the other case, but what the Court is
considering is the nature of the charge and the impact on
the victim.

. . . .
You're only pleading to Sex [Assault] 4. I get that.
But I have to take into consideration the nature of the
harm. Right?
. . . .

. . . Penetration is not to be considered. He didn't
plead to that. However, the Court is going to find that the
impact upon the victim requires that I'm not gonna grant the
deferral.

. . . .
Court will note so it's clear because you have
procedural opportunities to, you know, address what I did
that the findings were not based on remorse or lack of
remorse or penetration or any of the nonfactual statements
which I can't consider by the victim but is based upon the
impact upon the victim as stated during her statement to the
Court.

Thus, as we recently stated:

The record does not reflect the Circuit Court improperly
considered the multiple sexual assault charges with which
Kaluna had been charged, rather than the single Kidnapping

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

offense for which he was convicted. The Circuit Court
referred to the need for Kaluna to be accountable for
causing "a person to be harmed not necessarily physically
but psychologically," and did not refer to the harm as both
physical and psychological in nature, as would be expected
for sexual assault offenses.

State v. Kaluna, No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2024 WL 637400, at *4 (Haw.
App. Feb. 15, 2024) (SDO), cert. rejected, No. SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX,
2024 WL 2795531 (Haw. May 20, 2024).
Here, the Circuit Court acknowledged that Gaeta was
eligible for a DANC under HRS § 853-1(a). The Circuit Court
acknowledged and followed the holding in Satoafaiga. The Circuit
Court considered the circumstances of the offense and the
characteristics of the defendant as mandated by HRS § 706-606(1),
and factors listed in HRS § 706-606(2)(c) & (d), in imposing
sentence and special conditions of probation. The Circuit Court
acted within its discretion by denying the motion for DANC.
The First Amended Judgment of Conviction and Probation
Sentence entered on August 7, 2023, is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, August 27, 2025.

On the briefs:
/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Jason R. Kwiat, Presiding Judge
for Defendant-Appellant.
/s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Frederick M. Macapinlac, Associate Judge
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
for Plaintiff-Appellee. /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
Associate Judge

7