State v. Afo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
30-SEP-2025
09:12 AM
Dkt. 90 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BRODIE AFO, Defendant-Appellee, and
SHAKA BEST DEAL BAIL BONDS, Real Party in Interest-Appellee.

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

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

Plaintiff-Appellant State of Hawai‘i appeals from the

Circuit Court of the First Circuit's July 31, 2023 "Order

Granting Shaka Best Deal Bail Bonds' Motion to Set Aside

Judgment and Order of Bond Forfeiture and Discharge Bond[.]" 1

(Formatting altered.) On appeal, the State contends Real Party

in Interest-Appellee Shaka Best Deal Bail Bonds did not have

standing to move to set aside the bond forfeiture. We reverse.

1 The Honorable Fa‘auuga L. To‘oto‘o presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

The State charged Defendant-Appellee Brodie S. Afo

with Robbery in the First Degree. Bail was set at $50,000.00.

The Bail Bond filed on May 5, 2021 contains the

following information:

SCOTT'S BAIL BONDS, L.L.C. d.b.a,
ALOHA BAIL BONDS Agency License 434903
SCOTT M. NORTHUP, SURETY AGENT Agent License 430766
725 KAPIOLANI BLVD #C117
HONOLULU, HI 96813

(Some formatting altered.) "SCOTT M. NORTHUP SURETY AGENT"

signed the Bail Bond. 2

Afo failed to appear at court, and the circuit court

entered a "Judgment and Order of Forfeiture of Bail Bond"

(Forfeiture Judgment) on August 16, 2021. (Formatting altered.)

Twenty-one months later, on June 2, 2023, Shaka moved

to set aside the Forfeiture Judgment. The motion was submitted

by "Attorney for SHAKA BAIL BONDS[.]" The declaration of

Shaka's attorney stated that Scott Northup was the owner of

Shaka, and "Shaka is surety for [Afo] by virtue of a[] $50,000

2 "A bond is a contract between the surety and the government that, if
the government releases the principal from custody, the surety will undertake
that the principal will appear personally at any specified time and place."
State v. Nelson, 139 Hawai‘i 147, 161 n.7, 384 P.3d 923, 937 n.7 (App. 2016)
(citation modified), aff'd, 140 Hawai‘i 123, 398 P.3d 712 (2017).

A surety may be a person or entity. Id. at 160, 384 P.3d at 936.

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

bail bond filed with this Court on 5/5/21." 3 (Formatting

altered.)

During the evidentiary hearings, Shaka's attorney,

Guy S. Matsunaga, stated his appearance as being "on behalf of

the bail bonds who -- bail bonds company whose owner is present

to my right, Your Honor. That's Scott Northrup [sic]" and "on

behalf of Shaka Bail Bonds, whose representative Scott Northrup

[sic], he is present." 4 Shaka presented no evidence.

The circuit court granted Shaka's motion to set aside

the Forfeiture Judgment. The State appealed.

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs

submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to

the issues raised and the arguments advanced, we resolve this

appeal as discussed below and reverse.

Again, the State contends the circuit court committed

plain error in setting aside the Forfeiture Judgment because

3 However, the claim Shaka is the surety for Afo based on the May 5,
2021 Bail Bond is not supported by the record, as Shaka does not appear
anywhere on the May 5, 2021 Bail Bond. See Hawai‘i Rules of Professional
Conduct (HRPC) Rule 3.3(a)(1) ("A lawyer shall not knowingly . . . make a
false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal[.]" (formatting
altered)).

4 Although Shaka's counsel proffered that Shaka was owned by Scott
Northup and Scott Northup was present at the hearings, "[a] lawyer employed
or retained by an organization represents the organization acting through its
duly authorized constituents." HRPC Rule 1.13(a) (emphasis added).

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Shaka was not the principal or the surety on the bond. The

State relies on Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 804-51 (2014).

The version of HRS § 804-51 in effect at the time

allowed the principal or surety to move to set aside (or not

execute) a forfeiture judgment within thirty days of the notice

of the forfeiture: 5

Procedure. Whenever the court, in any criminal
cause, forfeits any bond or recognizance given in a
criminal cause, the court shall immediately enter up
judgment in favor of the State and against the principal or
principals and surety or sureties on the bond, jointly and
severally, for the full amount of the penalty thereof, and
shall cause execution to issue thereon immediately after
the expiration of thirty days from the date that notice is
given via personal service or certified mail, return
receipt requested, to the surety or sureties on the bond,
of the entry of the judgment in favor of the State, unless
before the expiration of thirty days from the date that
notice is given to the surety or sureties on the bond of
the entry of the judgment in favor of the State, a motion
or application of the principal or principals, surety or
sureties, or any of them, showing good cause why execution
should not issue upon the judgment, is filed with the
court. If the motion or application, after a hearing held
thereon, is sustained, the court shall vacate the judgment
of forfeiture and, if the principal surrenders or is
surrendered pursuant to section 804-14 or section 804-41,
return the bond or recognizance to the principal or surety,
whoever shall have given it, less the amount of any cost,
as established at the hearing, incurred by the State as a
result of the nonappearance of the principal or other event
on the basis of which the court forfeited the bond or
recognizance. If the motion or application, after a
hearing held thereon, is overruled, execution shall
forthwith issue and shall not be stayed unless the order
overruling the motion or application is appealed from as in
the case of a final judgment.

This section shall be considered to be set forth in
full in words and figures in, and to form a part of, and to
be included in, each and every bond or recognizance given
in a criminal cause, whether actually set forth in the bond
or recognizance, or not.

5 The legislature amended HRS § 804-51 in 2023 to also allow surety
insurers to receive the thirty-day notice and to file motions "showing good
cause why execution should not issue upon the judgment[.]" HRS § 804-51
(Supp. 2023).
4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

HRS § 804-51 (emphases added).

"In Hawai‘i, standing typically focuses on the party

seeking relief, not on the issues the party wants adjudicated."

Alpha, Inc. v. Bd. of Water Supply, 154 Hawai‘i 486, 492, 555

P.3d 173, 179 (2024). "[S]tanding is a prudential consideration

regarding the 'proper - and properly limited - role of courts in

a democratic society' and is not an issue of subject matter

jurisdiction[.]" Tax Found. of Hawai‘i v. State, 144 Hawai‘i

175, 188, 439 P.3d 127, 140 (2019).

Here, the principal was Afo. The circuit court made

no finding as to who or what was the surety. See State v.

Nelson, 140 Hawai‘i 123, 136, 398 P.3d 712, 725 (2017) ("The

surety named on the bond is critical to applying HRS § 804-51,

as the statute requires that when a bond is forfeited, 'the

court shall immediately enter up judgment in favor of the State

and against the . . . surety or sureties on the bond[.]'") We

note the Bail Bond did not substantially comply with Hawai‘i

Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Form J requiring, among other

things, the identification of the "Third-Party Surety or Agent."

See HRPP Rule 46(b) (requiring the bond to be "in a form that

substantially complies with Form J"). But it is clear that

Shaka was not the surety as Shaka's name appeared nowhere on the

Bail Bond.

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Because Shaka presented no evidence to establish it

had standing to challenge the Forfeiture Judgment under HRS

§ 804-51, the circuit court erred in granting Shaka's motion to

set aside the Forfeiture Judgment.

Based on the foregoing, we reverse the circuit court's

July 31, 2023 "Order Granting Shaka Best Deal Bail Bonds' Motion

to Set Aside Judgment and Order of Bond Forfeiture and Discharge

Bond[.]" (Formatting altered.)

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, September 30, 2025.

On the briefs: /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Presiding Judge
Dean A. Soma,
Steve A. Bumanglag, /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Deputy Attorneys General, Associate Judge
for Plaintiff-Appellant.
/s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Robert J. Christensen, Associate Judge
for Real Party in Interest-
Appellee.

6