State v. Davis

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
15-OCT-2025
07:55 AM
Dkt. 77 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
RENARD C. DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
#EWA DIVISION
(CASE NO. 1DTC-23-038189)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, and Hiraoka and Wadsworth, JJ.)

Defendant-Appellant Renard C. Davis (Davis) appeals
from and the Notice of Entry of Judgment and/or Order and Plea/
Judgment (Judgment) entered on September 20, 2023, and the Free
Standing Order of Restitution (Restitution Order) entered on
September 27, 2023, in the District Court of the First Circuit,
#Ewa Division (District Court).1/ Pursuant to a plea agreement,
the District Court convicted Davis of Driving Without a License,
in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 286-102, and
Striking an Unattended Vehicle, in violation of HRS § 291C-15.
Following a restitution hearing, the District Court ordered
Davis: (A) to pay restitution in the amounts of $500 to
complaining witness Sharlayna Ramiro (Ramiro) and $12,391.98 to
complaining witness Joanne Ferreira (Ferreira); and (B) to pay
the restitution at the rate of $30 per month.

1/
The Honorable Tracy S. Fukui presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

On appeal, Davis contends that the District Court
erred: (1) in awarding $12,391.98 in restitution to Ferreira,
where the State failed to make a prima facie showing that the
amount was reasonable under HRS § 706-646; and (2) in ordering
Davis to pay restitution to Ferreira at the rate of $30 per
month, where the court "failed to consider Davis's financial
ability to make restitution for the purpose of establishing the
time and manner of payment" under HRS § 706-646(3).2/ Davis does
not challenge the restitution award to Ramiro in any respect.
After reviewing the record on appeal and the relevant
legal authorities, and giving due consideration to the issues
raised and the arguments advanced by the parties, we resolve
Davis's contentions as follows, and affirm.
(1) Davis contends that the State presented
insufficient evidence to show that the restitution amount awarded
to Ferreira was reasonable.
Generally, under HRS § 706-646(2), a court must order a
defendant to pay restitution for losses suffered by the "victim,"
as defined in subsection (1), as a result of the defendant's
offense when requested by the victim. HRS § 706-646(2) "imposes
four requirements before restitution must be awarded; the
victim's losses must be (1) 'reasonable,' (2) 'verified,' (3)
'suffered . . . as a result of the defendant's conduct,' and (4)

2/
HRS § 706-646 (Supp. 2022) states, in relevant part:

(2) The court shall order the defendant to make
restitution for reasonable and verified losses suffered by
the victim or victims as a result of the defendant's offense
when requested by the victim. . . .

(3) In ordering restitution, the court shall not
consider the defendant's financial ability to make
restitution in determining the amount of restitution to
order. The court, however, shall consider the defendant's
financial ability to make restitution for the purpose of
establishing the time and manner of payment. The court
shall specify the time and manner in which restitution is to
be paid. . . . Restitution shall be a dollar amount that is
sufficient to reimburse any victim fully for losses,
including but not limited to:
(a) Full value of stolen or damaged property, as
determined by replacement costs of like
property, or the actual or estimated cost of
repair, if repair is possible[.]

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

'requested by the victim.'" State v. DeMello, 136 Hawai#i 193,
196, 361 P.3d 420, 423 (2015). Thus, here, where Ferreira
requested restitution, the State was required to demonstrate by a
preponderance of the evidence that her alleged losses were
reasonable, verified and caused by Davis. See HRS § 706-646(2);
State v. DeMello, 130 Hawai#i 332, 343-44, 310 P.3d 1033, 1044-45
(App. 2013), vacated in part on other grounds, 136 Hawai#i 193,
361 P.3d 420 (2015). The State bore the burden of making a prima
facie showing of these losses. See DeMello, 130 Hawai#i at 344,
310 P.3d at 1045. If the State did so, the burden shifted to
Davis to come forward with evidence supporting his challenge to
the requested amount. See id.
Here, there is no dispute that Davis's conduct —
driving into and thereby damaging Ferreira's parked car — caused
her loss. There is also no dispute that the amount of the loss
was "verified" by a repair estimate that Ferreira obtained from a
legitimate repair business. Davis challenges only the
reasonableness of Ferreira's requested restitution amount. He
argues that because the State failed to make a prima facie
showing of reasonableness, the burden never shifted to him to
come forward with evidence supporting his challenge to the
requested amount.
At the restitution hearing, Ferreira testified that she
obtained a repair estimate from Maaco, and repairing her car
would cost $12,391.98. The estimate was entered into evidence
without objection. Ferreira further testified that the incident
involving her car took off part of the back end on the left side,
such that she would need "a whole new bumper" and related repairs
involving a quarter panel, rear body, lift gate, rear bumper, and
rear lamps. She testified that her insurance policy did not
cover "collision," so she would have to pay for these costs out
of pocket.
Davis argued that Ferreira should not recover $12,000
in restitution, where she had not yet paid to repair the damage
to her car. He presented no evidence regarding the
reasonableness of the requested amount.

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

The District Court ruled, in relevant part, as follows:

With respect to Ms. [Ferreira] --
. . . .

So although it might seem high to a layperson, I don't
have any evidence to the contrary. I mean, that's what was
submitted. . . .

Now, there could have been an issue whether that
amount was reasonable if the total loss was less than
[$]12,391.98. But there's been no evidence presented for
the Court to make that determination, whether a 2012 Nissan
Rogue at the time of the incident was worth less than
[$]12,391.98. So this -- the Court is left to make a
decision with what's before it.
And there is a -- the Court finds that Ms. Ferreira
was credible, that she obtained the quote and -- from a
legitimate business, and that the - that quote was for
$12,391.98. And the Court has no basis to find that that is
not a reasonable amount. So the Court is going to order
restitution in that amount as well, payable to [Ms.]
Ferreira.

Davis characterizes the court's ruling as a finding
that the record lacked any evidence to establish the
reasonableness of the amount requested by Ferreira. Not so. HRS
§ 706-646(3)(a) expressly allows restitution to be based on the
"estimated cost of repair, if repair is possible[.]" The State
presented exactly that evidence, thereby establishing its prima
facie case. The District Court merely observed that Davis could
have tried to present evidence supporting his challenge to the
requested amount, but did not do so.
On this record, the State presented sufficient evidence
to establish that Ferreira's loss, and the corresponding
restitution amount was reasonable. The District Court did not
err or otherwise abuse its discretion on that basis in ordering
Davis to pay the restitution amount to Ferreira.
(2) Davis contends that the District Court erred in
ordering him to pay restitution to Ferreira at the rate of $30
per month, where the court allegedly failed to comply with the
requirements of HRS § 706-646. Specifically, Davis argues that
the court "failed to consider Davis's financial ability to make
restitution for the purpose of establishing the time and manner
of payment" under HRS § 706-646(3). Davis acknowledges that he
did not raise this issue in the District Court, and "urges this

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

Court to recognize plain error."
We decline to do so in the circumstances of this case.
Davis was represented by the Office of the Public Defender
throughout the proceedings below, and now on appeal. At Davis's
June 5, 2023 plea hearing, the District Court informed Davis, and
he acknowledged, that there would be a restitution study, and the
court was mandated to order restitution if it was both reasonable
and verifiable. On July 25, 2023, the Adult Client Services
Branch, Adult Juvenile Community Service and Restitution Unit
(A/JCSRU) filed its Restitution Report (Report). As to Davis's
ability to pay, the Report indicated: (1) on June 13, 2023,
A/JCSRU called Davis, who requested that the relevant
documentation be e-mailed to him; (2) on the same date, A/JCSRU
e-mailed him a Financial Statement Form with a response date of
June 28, 2023; and (3) as of the date of the Report, no further
contact had been received from Davis. The Report indicated that
without income and expense information from Davis, an ability-to-
pay analysis could not be conducted, and recommended that Davis
pay a monthly minimum of $30 per month. Thereafter, at the
September 20, 2023 restitution hearing, Davis did not raise the
issue of his ability to pay restitution at the recommended rate.
It appears that in issuing the Restitution Order, the District
Court adopted the Report's recommendation that Davis pay
restitution at the rate of $30 per month. Davis still raised no
objection to the time and manner of payment.
Now, on appeal, Davis asserts that the District Court's
failure to consider his financial ability to make restitution for
payment purposes "substantially affected Davis's fundamental
rights." He cites generally to the due process and equal
protection clause of the Hawai#i Constitution, but does not
identify what substantial or fundamental right was affected, or
how it was affected in these circumstances, where Davis was given
multiple opportunities to address the time and manner of payment.
Nor does Davis explain what substantial right could be affected,
where he challenges the $30 per month payment rate as to
Ferreira's restitution award, but not as to Ramiro's award. On
this record, we decline to recognize plain error.

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

For the reason discussed above, we affirm the Notice of
Entry of Judgment and/or Order and Plea/Judgment entered on
September 20, 2023, and the Free Standing Order of Restitution
entered on September 27, 2023, in the District Court of the First
Circuit, #Ewa Division.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, October 15, 2025.

On the briefs:
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Jason M. Kramberg, Chief Judge
Deputy Public Defender,
for Defendant-Appellant.
/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Robert T. Nakatsuji, Associate Judge
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
City & County of Honolulu,
for Plaintiff-Appellee. /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Associate Judge

6

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
15-OCT-2025
07:55 AM
Dkt. 77 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
RENARD C. DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
#EWA DIVISION
(CASE NO. 1DTC-23-038189)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, and Hiraoka and Wadsworth, JJ.)

Defendant-Appellant Renard C. Davis (Davis) appeals
from and the Notice of Entry of Judgment and/or Order and Plea/
Judgment (Judgment) entered on September 20, 2023, and the Free
Standing Order of Restitution (Restitution Order) entered on
September 27, 2023, in the District Court of the First Circuit,
#Ewa Division (District Court).1/ Pursuant to a plea agreement,
the District Court convicted Davis of Driving Without a License,
in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 286-102, and
Striking an Unattended Vehicle, in violation of HRS § 291C-15.
Following a restitution hearing, the District Court ordered
Davis: (A) to pay restitution in the amounts of $500 to
complaining witness Sharlayna Ramiro (Ramiro) and $12,391.98 to
complaining witness Joanne Ferreira (Ferreira); and (B) to pay
the restitution at the rate of $30 per month.

1/
The Honorable Tracy S. Fukui presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

On appeal, Davis contends that the District Court
erred: (1) in awarding $12,391.98 in restitution to Ferreira,
where the State failed to make a prima facie showing that the
amount was reasonable under HRS § 706-646; and (2) in ordering
Davis to pay restitution to Ferreira at the rate of $30 per
month, where the court "failed to consider Davis's financial
ability to make restitution for the purpose of establishing the
time and manner of payment" under HRS § 706-646(3).2/ Davis does
not challenge the restitution award to Ramiro in any respect.
After reviewing the record on appeal and the relevant
legal authorities, and giving due consideration to the issues
raised and the arguments advanced by the parties, we resolve
Davis's contentions as follows, and affirm.
(1) Davis contends that the State presented
insufficient evidence to show that the restitution amount awarded
to Ferreira was reasonable.
Generally, under HRS § 706-646(2), a court must order a
defendant to pay restitution for losses suffered by the "victim,"
as defined in subsection (1), as a result of the defendant's
offense when requested by the victim. HRS § 706-646(2) "imposes
four requirements before restitution must be awarded; the
victim's losses must be (1) 'reasonable,' (2) 'verified,' (3)
'suffered . . . as a result of the defendant's conduct,' and (4)

2/
HRS § 706-646 (Supp. 2022) states, in relevant part:
(2) The court shall order the defendant to make
restitution for reasonable and verified losses suffered by
the victim or victims as a result of the defendant's offense
when requested by the victim. . . .

(3) In ordering restitution, the court shall not
consider the defendant's financial ability to make
restitution in determining the amount of restitution to
order. The court, however, shall consider the defendant's
financial ability to make restitution for the purpose of
establishing the time and manner of payment. The court
shall specify the time and manner in which restitution is to
be paid. . . . Restitution shall be a dollar amount that is
sufficient to reimburse any victim fully for losses,
including but not limited to:
(a) Full value of stolen or damaged property, as
determined by replacement costs of like
property, or the actual or estimated cost of
repair, if repair is possible[.]

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

'requested by the victim.'" State v. DeMello, 136 Hawai#i 193,
196, 361 P.3d 420, 423 (2015). Thus, here, where Ferreira
requested restitution, the State was required to demonstrate by a
preponderance of the evidence that her alleged losses were
reasonable, verified and caused by Davis. See HRS § 706-646(2);
State v. DeMello, 130 Hawai#i 332, 343-44, 310 P.3d 1033, 1044-45
(App. 2013), vacated in part on other grounds, 136 Hawai#i 193,
361 P.3d 420 (2015). The State bore the burden of making a prima
facie showing of these losses. See DeMello, 130 Hawai#i at 344,
310 P.3d at 1045. If the State did so, the burden shifted to
Davis to come forward with evidence supporting his challenge to
the requested amount. See id.
Here, there is no dispute that Davis's conduct —
driving into and thereby damaging Ferreira's parked car — caused
her loss. There is also no dispute that the amount of the loss
was "verified" by a repair estimate that Ferreira obtained from a
legitimate repair business. Davis challenges only the
reasonableness of Ferreira's requested restitution amount. He
argues that because the State failed to make a prima facie
showing of reasonableness, the burden never shifted to him to
come forward with evidence supporting his challenge to the
requested amount.
At the restitution hearing, Ferreira testified that she
obtained a repair estimate from Maaco, and repairing her car
would cost $12,391.98. The estimate was entered into evidence
without objection. Ferreira further testified that the incident
involving her car took off part of the back end on the left side,
such that she would need "a whole new bumper" and related repairs
involving a quarter panel, rear body, lift gate, rear bumper, and
rear lamps. She testified that her insurance policy did not
cover "collision," so she would have to pay for these costs out
of pocket.
Davis argued that Ferreira should not recover $12,000
in restitution, where she had not yet paid to repair the damage
to her car. He presented no evidence regarding the
reasonableness of the requested amount.

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

The District Court ruled, in relevant part, as follows:

With respect to Ms. [Ferreira] --
. . . .
So although it might seem high to a layperson, I don't
have any evidence to the contrary. I mean, that's what was
submitted. . . .
Now, there could have been an issue whether that
amount was reasonable if the total loss was less than
[$]12,391.98. But there's been no evidence presented for
the Court to make that determination, whether a 2012 Nissan
Rogue at the time of the incident was worth less than
[$]12,391.98. So this -- the Court is left to make a
decision with what's before it.
And there is a -- the Court finds that Ms. Ferreira
was credible, that she obtained the quote and -- from a
legitimate business, and that the - that quote was for
$12,391.98. And the Court has no basis to find that that is
not a reasonable amount. So the Court is going to order
restitution in that amount as well, payable to [Ms.]
Ferreira.

Davis characterizes the court's ruling as a finding
that the record lacked any evidence to establish the
reasonableness of the amount requested by Ferreira. Not so. HRS
§ 706-646(3)(a) expressly allows restitution to be based on the
"estimated cost of repair, if repair is possible[.]" The State
presented exactly that evidence, thereby establishing its prima
facie case. The District Court merely observed that Davis could
have tried to present evidence supporting his challenge to the
requested amount, but did not do so.
On this record, the State presented sufficient evidence
to establish that Ferreira's loss, and the corresponding
restitution amount was reasonable. The District Court did not
err or otherwise abuse its discretion on that basis in ordering
Davis to pay the restitution amount to Ferreira.
(2) Davis contends that the District Court erred in
ordering him to pay restitution to Ferreira at the rate of $30
per month, where the court allegedly failed to comply with the
requirements of HRS § 706-646. Specifically, Davis argues that
the court "failed to consider Davis's financial ability to make
restitution for the purpose of establishing the time and manner
of payment" under HRS § 706-646(3). Davis acknowledges that he
did not raise this issue in the District Court, and "urges this

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

Court to recognize plain error."
We decline to do so in the circumstances of this case.
Davis was represented by the Office of the Public Defender
throughout the proceedings below, and now on appeal. At Davis's
June 5, 2023 plea hearing, the District Court informed Davis, and
he acknowledged, that there would be a restitution study, and the
court was mandated to order restitution if it was both reasonable
and verifiable. On July 25, 2023, the Adult Client Services
Branch, Adult Juvenile Community Service and Restitution Unit
(A/JCSRU) filed its Restitution Report (Report). As to Davis's
ability to pay, the Report indicated: (1) on June 13, 2023,
A/JCSRU called Davis, who requested that the relevant
documentation be e-mailed to him; (2) on the same date, A/JCSRU
e-mailed him a Financial Statement Form with a response date of
June 28, 2023; and (3) as of the date of the Report, no further
contact had been received from Davis. The Report indicated that
without income and expense information from Davis, an ability-to-
pay analysis could not be conducted, and recommended that Davis
pay a monthly minimum of $30 per month. Thereafter, at the
September 20, 2023 restitution hearing, Davis did not raise the
issue of his ability to pay restitution at the recommended rate.
It appears that in issuing the Restitution Order, the District
Court adopted the Report's recommendation that Davis pay
restitution at the rate of $30 per month. Davis still raised no
objection to the time and manner of payment.
Now, on appeal, Davis asserts that the District Court's
failure to consider his financial ability to make restitution for
payment purposes "substantially affected Davis's fundamental
rights." He cites generally to the due process and equal
protection clause of the Hawai#i Constitution, but does not
identify what substantial or fundamental right was affected, or
how it was affected in these circumstances, where Davis was given
multiple opportunities to address the time and manner of payment.
Nor does Davis explain what substantial right could be affected,
where he challenges the $30 per month payment rate as to
Ferreira's restitution award, but not as to Ramiro's award. On
this record, we decline to recognize plain error.

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

For the reason discussed above, we affirm the Notice of
Entry of Judgment and/or Order and Plea/Judgment entered on
September 20, 2023, and the Free Standing Order of Restitution
entered on September 27, 2023, in the District Court of the First
Circuit, #Ewa Division.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, October 15, 2025.

On the briefs:
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Jason M. Kramberg, Chief Judge
Deputy Public Defender,
for Defendant-Appellant.
/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Robert T. Nakatsuji, Associate Judge
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
City & County of Honolulu,
for Plaintiff-Appellee. /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Associate Judge

6