State v. Kuamoo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
28-AUG-2024
08:09 AM
Dkt. 64 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
SAMUEL KUAMOO, Defendant-Appellant

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

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

Samuel Kuamoo appeals from the Free-Standing Order of
Restitution Pursuant to Sections 706-605, 706-644, and 706-647,
H.R.S. entered by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit on
October 15, 2020.1 Kuamoo challenges the Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, and Order of Restitution entered on
September 25, 2020. We affirm.
On July 16, 2019, Kuamoo was charged with Abuse of
Family or Household Members (Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS)
§ 709-906(1) & (8)), Terroristic Threatening in the First Degree
(HRS § 707-716(1)(e)), and Resisting Arrest (HRS § 710-
1026(1)(a)). Under a plea agreement, he pleaded guilty to the
lesser charge of Assault in the Third Degree (HRS § 707-712), and
to the Terroristic Threatening in the First Degree and Resisting
Arrest counts as charged. He moved to defer acceptance of his

1
The Honorable Karen T. Nakasone presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

plea. The circuit court granted the motion for deferred
acceptance. One of the conditions of deferral was that Kuamoo
"make restitution for losses suffered by the victim(s) if the
court has ordered restitution pursuant to § 706-646, H.R.S." The
Hawai#i Department of Human Services (DHS) moved for restitution.
The court held an evidentiary hearing, made findings of fact and
conclusions of law, and entered the Free-Standing Order of
Restitution.
This appeal followed. The Free-Standing Order of
Restitution is, by its terms, "enforceable in the same manner as
a civil judgment[.]" We have jurisdiction over Kuamoo's appeal
under Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 4(a)(1) and/or
4(b)(1). See State v. Gaylord, 78 Hawai#i 127, 154-55, 890 P.2d
1167, 1194-95 (1995) (noting that objectives of restitution
include "quasi-civil compensation"); cf. Kukui Nuts of Haw., Inc.
v. R. Baird & Co., 6 Haw. App. 431, 726 P.2d 268 (1986) (order
awarding attorneys fees for discovery abuses that specified
amount to be paid and was reduced to enforceable judgment was
appealable under collateral order doctrine).
Kuamoo contends the circuit court erred by ordering him
to pay $7,938.60 to DHS.2 He challenges findings of fact nos. 8,
11, 13, 14, 15, 17, and 18, and conclusions of law nos. 7 and 8.3
We review findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard,
and conclusions of law de novo. State v. Rodrigues, 145 Hawai#i
487, 494, 454 P.3d 428, 435 (2019). A conclusion presenting
mixed questions of fact and law is reviewed under the clearly

2
The total amount of restitution ordered was $8,097.51. Kuamoo
does not challenge $158.91 of that amount. He does not challenge that DHS is
the "victim" for purposes of restitution. HRS § 706-646(1) (2014) ("'victim'
includes . . . [a] governmental entity that has . . . paid for medical care
provided to the victim as a result of the crime[.]").
3
Kuamoo also challenges the admission of State's Exhibit 3, which
was offered with the State's post-hearing memorandum. He argues it was
incomplete and submitted after the close of evidence. But he did not request
a further evidentiary hearing and stated he would "defer to the Court if the
[missing] portion of Exhibit '3' should be provided in full to all parties."
As discussed below, even without considering Exhibit 3, there was substantial
evidence to support the circuit court's findings of fact.

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

erroneous standard because it depends on the facts and
circumstances of the particular case. Id.
The Hawai#i victim restitution statute provides, 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) . . . Restitution shall be a dollar amount that
is sufficient to reimburse any victim fully for losses,
including but not limited to:
. . . .

(b) Medical expenses, which shall include mental
health treatment, counseling, and therapy[.]

HRS § 706-646 (Supp. 2019) (emphasis added). The State must
prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, a causal connection
between the restitution requested and the crime with which the
defendant is charged. 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). If the defendant
contests the amounts requested by the victim, the defendant must
offer evidence to support the challenge. Id.
Kuamoo admitted (as part of his guilty plea) that he
"intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly caused bodily injury to"
the complaining witness (CW) on or about June 9, 2019. The
circuit court found, and Kuamoo does not challenge,4 that CW told
police Kuamoo punched her face, head, and chest, causing pain to
her head, face, and mouth. CW also told police Kuamoo held a
knife to her throat, cut her neck, had her in a headlock, and
choked her. She wasn't sure if she lost consciousness during the
assault. She received emergency medical treatment at Castle
Medical Center because of the assault. Bennett Lee, M.D.
reported that CW sustained "abrasions/superficial laceration to
neck and back. Contusions to forehead. Fracture of nose and

4
Unchallenged findings of fact are binding on appeal. Rodrigues,
145 Hawai#i at 494, 454 P.3d at 435.

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

medial orbital sinus." Dr. Lee "indicated that the fractures
were possibly 'old' injuries from a prior incident[.]" The
charges in dispute were shown on documentation in Kuamoo's
presentence report as:

$7,822.75 for "fracture of nasal bones, init encn"
$115.85 for "fracture orbital floor rt side init"

CW testified that she was taken to the hospital by
ambulance after she was assaulted. She told the "ambulance guys"
her "head was hurting." Kuamoo caused her head injury when they
had a fight. She said, "He hit me in my head." She was taken to
Castle Hospital. She said, "My head was in so much pain. I was
in -- actually -- my head wasn't functioning right." The Castle
doctors took CAT scans of her head, face, and neck. She was
hooked up to machines and given fluids and pain medication. This
happened in the early morning hours of June 10th.
The State called Gary Ojiri. He was DHS's Med-QUEST
Hawai#i Medicaid program representative. The circuit court took
judicial notice of Kuamoo's presentence investigation report,
which included a spreadsheet of payments made by the Quest
provider for "charges that happened at the emergency room" on
June 10, 2019. State's Exhibit 1 was a copy of Castle Medical
Center's bill with Ojiri's handwritten notes. The notes showed
billing codes for CAT scans of the head, "maxillofacial, which is
the front of the face[,]" and neck, and for emergency room
services.
Here, even without considering State's Exhibit 3, there
was substantial evidence to support the challenged findings of
fact summarized in these findings:

11. As to Item #4, $115.85 for a fracture diagnosis
by provider Dr. Bennett Lee, the court finds by a
preponderance of the evidence that Dr. Lee was the emergency
department physician who filled out the HPD-13 form, which
is in evidence as Exhibit "C". Dr. Lee was a critical part
of the necessary medical treatment rendered to [CW] to
diagnose her injuries . . . Dr. Lee's billing in Item #4 is
reasonable, verified, and did arise as a result of
[Kuamoo]'s assault offense, and therefore, this court awards
DHS's requested restitution for Item #4.

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

. . . .
18. This court finds, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that all of the 21 billed items in the Castle bill
[State's Exhibit 1], were a direct result of the medical
diagnosis and treatment of [CW] which occurred as a result
of [Kuamoo]'s assault offense. Because the required nexus
exists between [Kuamoo]'s offense and DHS's costs in Item #1
($7,822.75), the court awards restitution for this amount.

Kuamoo argues that the charges were for treatment of
CW's 15-year-old nose fracture, which wasn't caused by his
assault. But Ojiri testified there was no treatment or service
rendered for a nasal bone fracture — there was just the CAT scan
that resulted in the diagnosis of the old fracture. Kuamoo did
not call Dr. Lee or any emergency room staff to contradict Ojiri.
The evidence showed that the CAT scan — and all of the June 10,
2019 emergency room tests and services — were necessary because
Kuamoo's assault caused CW's head to hurt and not function right
(as well as her other injuries).
The challenged conclusions of law, which are actually
mixed findings and conclusions, were not clearly erroneous and
reflected an application of the correct rule of law. Est. of
Klink ex rel. Klink v. State, 113 Hawai#i 332, 351, 152 P.3d 504,
523 (2007). The circuit court's September 25, 2020 "Findings Of
Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order of Restitution" and
October 15, 2020 "Free-Standing Order of Restitution Pursuant to
Sections 706-605, 706-644 and 706-647, H.R.S." are affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, August 28, 2024.

On the briefs:
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Taryn R. Tomasa, Acting Chief Judge
Deputy Public Defender,
State of Hawai#i, /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
for Defendant-Appellant. Associate Judge

Gary K. Senaga, /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Deputy Attorney General, Associate Judge
State of Hawai#i,
for Plaintiff-Appellee.

5