In re: The Extradition of Moreno

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
15-OCT-2025
12:46 PM
Dkt. 64 AMORD

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

IN THE MATTER OF THE EXTRADITION OF
CARLOS JESUS MORENO, Respondent-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 2CSP-XX-XXXXXXX(1))

AMENDED ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL AS MOOT
(By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, and Leonard and Wadsworth, JJ.)

Upon review of the record, it appears that:
1. On March 9, 2023, Petitioner-Appellee State of
Hawai#i (State) initiated extradition proceedings in the Circuit
Court of the Second (Circuit Court) against Respondent-Appellant
Carlos Jesus Moreno (Moreno), following a Demand for Extradition
made by the Pascua Yaqui Tribe (Tribe). The Tribe had charged
Moreno with six offenses related to an alleged shooting on the
Pascua Yaqui Reservation in Arizona.
2. On March 16, 2023, Moreno filed a Motion to Dismiss
Extradition Proceedings (Motion to Dismiss), seeking to prevent
his extradition on the ground that the Tribe is a sovereign
nation, not a state or federal territory covered by the
extradition process.
3. On April 18, 2023, the Circuit Court entered
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order denying the
Motion to Dismiss (Order).
4. On May 19, 2023, Moreno filed a notice of appeal
from the Order, creating this appeal.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

5. The mootness doctrine applies "where events
subsequent to the judgment of the trial court have so affected
the relations between the parties that the two conditions for
justiciability relevant on appeal — adverse interest and
effective remedy — have been compromised." Hamilton ex rel.
Lethem v. Lethem, 119 Hawai#i 1, 5, 193 P.3d 839, 843 (2008)
(quoting Lathrop v. Sakatani, 111 Hawai#i 307, 312-13, 141 P.3d
480, 485-86 (2006)). "[A] case is moot if the reviewing court
can no longer grant effective relief." Kaho#ohanohano v. State,
114 Hawai#i 302, 332, 162 P.3d 696, 726 (2007) (emphasis and
original brackets omitted) (quoting Kemp v. State of Hawai#i
Child Support Enf't Agency, 111 Hawai#i 367, 385, 141 P.3d 1014,
1032 (2006)).
6. On August 4, 2025, this court issued an order,
which, among other things, took judicial notice of certain
federal court records indicating that Moreno may have been
transported to the District of Arizona and delivered to the
United States marshal for that district, or to another officer
authorized to receive him, in connection with an indictment and
arrest warrant from the District of Arizona. We ordered: (1)
Moreno's counsel in this appeal to file a declaration, affidavit,
or other sworn statement indicating whether Moreno has been
extradited or otherwise delivered to authorities in Arizona to
answer for the alleged offenses on the Pascua Yaqui Reservation
and, if so, what his current status is; and (2) the parties, in
the event that Moreno has been extradited or otherwise delivered
to authorities in Arizona, to file a memorandum addressing
whether the issues raised in this appeal are moot.
7. On August 14, 2025, Moreno's counsel, the Office of
the Public Defender, filed a Declaration of Counsel by Deputy
Public Defender Henry P. Ting (Ting). Ting stated that he spoke
with Moreno be telephone, who confirmed that United States
marshals had seized him and delivered him to authorities in
Arizona, where he is currently located. Ting "concedes this
appeal is moot because ths Court can no longer grant him
effective relief[,]" and states that Moreno agrees. Moreno does
not contend that any exception to the mootness doctrine applies.

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

8. On August 25, 2025, the State filed a memorandum
regarding mootness. The State notes that it "can no longer
effectuate Moreno's extradition to the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, nor
can Moreno obtain relief by preventing his extradition." The
State agrees that this appeal is moot.
9. Based on the parties' submissions, we conclude that
no effective relief can be granted in this appeal and it is
therefore moot.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this appeal is
dismissed as moot.

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

/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Chief Judge

/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Associate Judge

/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Associate Judge

3