State v. Kahele

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
09-APR-2026
08:53 AM
Dkt. 53 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
(CONSOLIDATED WITH CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX,
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, AND CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX)

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
DANIELLE K. KAHELE, also known as DANIELLE K. KANEAO,
and HEATHER TULL, also known as HEATHER O. TULL, and
HEATHER OWEN TULL, Defendants-Appellees,
and
ARTHUR LEE, dba ALL IN 1 BONDING,
Real Party In Interest-Appellant
(CASE NO. 1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX)

AND

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
DANIELLE KANEAO, and HEATHER TULL, Defendants-Appellees,
and
ARTHUR LEE, dba ALL IN 1 BONDING,
Real Party In Interest-Appellant
(CASE NO. 1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX)

AND

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
HEATHER TULL, Defendant-Appellee,
and
ARTHUR LEE, dba ALL IN 1 BONDING,
Real Party In Interest-Appellant
(CASE NO. 1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX)

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
HEATHER TULL, Defendant-Appellee,
and
ARTHUR LEE, dba ALL IN 1 BONDING,
Real Party In Interest-Appellant
(CASE NO. 1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX)

APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

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

Real Party in Interest-Appellant Arthur Lee, dba All in
1 Bonding (All in 1), appeals from the Order Denying Motion to
Set Aside Bail Forfeiture, Reinstate Then Discharge Bond and/or
Motion to Continue Hearing for Motion to Set Aside Bail
Forfeiture (Denial Order) entered on August 2, 2024, by the
Circuit Court of the First Circuit1/ (Circuit Court) in case nos.
1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX, 1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX, 1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX, and 1CPC-22-
0000556 (the Four Cases).2/
All in 1 posted a bail bond on behalf of Defendant
Heather Tull (Tull) in each of the Four Cases. When Tull failed
to appear for an April 22, 2024 trial call for the cases, the
Circuit Court issued a bench warrant for Tull's arrest and
ordered a forfeiture of her bail in each case. On April 26,
2024, the Circuit Court entered the Judgment and Order of
Forfeiture of Bail Bond (Forfeiture Judgment) in each case
pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 804-51.3/

1/
The Honorable Fa#auuga L. To#oto#o presided.
2/
On August 20, 2025, this court entered an order consolidating
appeal nos. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX (arising from case no. 1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX),
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX (arising from case no. 1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX), CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
(arising from case no. 1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX), and CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX (arising from
case no. 1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX), under CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX.
3/
HRS § 804-51 (Supp. 2023) provides, in relevant part:

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, surety or
sureties, and surety insurer or surety insurers on the bond,
(continued...)

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

On April 26, 2024, Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawai#i
(State) sent a letter via certified mail to All in 1 in each case
notifying All in 1 that the relevant bail bond had been forfeited
and enclosing a copy of the relevant Forfeiture Judgment. The
related proof of service in each case shows that the notice was
delivered to All in 1 on May 1, 2024, and All in 1 later
confirmed that it had received the notice "on or about" that
date.
On May 28, 2024, All in 1 filed a Motion to Set Aside
Bail Forfeiture, Reinstate Then Discharge Bond and/or Motion to
Continue Hearing for Motion to Set Aside Bail Forfeiture Judgment
(Motion) in each of the Four Cases. The Motion was set to be
heard on July 3, 2024.4/ All in 1 argued that the Motion was
timely, All in 1 was "still trying to search for [Tull] with an
active bounty hunter[,]" and pursuant to State v. Camara, 81
Hawai#i 324, 916 P.2d 1225 (1996), "good cause" existed for
setting aside the Forfeiture Judgments.
On July 10, 2024, Tull was arrested and the April 22,

3/
(...continued)
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 or
the surety insurer or surety insurers 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 or the surety insurer or
surety insurers 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, surety insurer or surety
insurers, 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, surety, or
surety insurer, 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.
4/
On June 21, 2024, the Circuit Court rescheduled the hearing to
July 12, 2024, due to its unavailability on July 3, 2024.

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

2024 bench warrant was served.5/
On July 12, 2024, the hearing on the Motion was held in
each of the Four Cases. Tull was in custody but not present at
the hearing. Following brief statements by All in 1 and the
State, which argued that All in 1 had not shown "good cause"
under HRS § 804-51, the Circuit Court denied the Motion.
On August 2, 2024, the Circuit Court entered the Denial
Order in each of the Four Cases. The court found in relevant
part: "Tull was arrested on July 10, 2024, for the bench warrant
issued by the court on April 22, 2024, which is forty days after
the search period expiration date of May 31, 2024."
On appeal, All in 1 contends that "the [C]ircuit
[C]ourt erred when it denied [All in 1's] Motion . . . pursuant
to Camara, the presumption of innocence, access to pretrial
justice, history/tradition of the courts across the state, and
[HRS] § 804-51."
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 All
in 1's contentions as follows, and affirm.
"[T]he determination of whether a principal or a surety
under a bail bond may secure relief from a judgment of
forfeiture, involves a question of law reviewable de novo."
State v. Flores, 88 Hawai#i 126, 130, 962 P.2d 1008, 1012 (1998)
(citing Camara, 81 Hawai#i at 329, 916 P.2d at 1230). "However,
a lower court's order denying relief from a judgment of bail bond
forfeiture on grounds that a surety has not, as required by HRS
§ 804–51, shown 'good cause why execution should not issue upon
the judgment' is reviewed for abuse of discretion." Id. (quoting
State v. Ranger Ins. Co., 83 Hawai#i 118, 122–24, 925 P.2d 288,
292–94 (1996)).
"[O]nce a bond is forfeited pursuant to HRS § 804-51, a
surety has thirty days from the time it receives notice of
forfeiture to set aside the forfeiture judgment[,]" referred to

5/
All in 1 states in its opening brief that it "was active in
securing the surrender and arrest of Tull." However, All in 1 does not point
to any evidence in the record that it was involved in "securing the surrender
and arrest of Tull."

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

as the "thirty-day search period." State v. Vaimili, 131 Hawai#i
9, 15, 313 P.3d 698, 704 (2013) (quoting Camara, 81 Hawai#i at
331, 916 P.2d at 1232). Specifically, "the surety is given
thirty days to file a motion showing good cause as to why the
judgment should not be executed[.]" Vaimili, 131 Hawai#i at 15,
313 P.3d at 704.
Here, there is no dispute that All in 1 filed the
Motion within the thirty-day search period. The issue is whether
the Motion showed good cause to set aside the Forfeiture
Judgment.
"Good cause" in this context "may be shown by the
defendant surrendering or being surrendered prior to the
expiration of the thirty-day search period." Camara, 81 Hawai#i
at 331, 916 P.2d at 1232; see Vaimili, 131 Hawai#i at 16, 313
P.3d at 705. The "good cause" requirement may also be satisfied
by showing, before the end of the thirty-day search period, "a
satisfactory reason for a defendant's failure to appear when
required." Camara, 81 Hawai#i at 330, 916 P.2d at 1231; see
Vaimili, 131 Hawai#i at 16 n.21, 313 P.3d at 705 n.21
(recognizing that "Camara also held that a surety could establish
good cause by showing that 'uncontrollable circumstances
prevented appearance' by the defendant").
Here, there is no dispute that Tull was surrendered
after the expiration of the thirty-day search period. Instead,
All in 1 argues that it satisfied the statutory good-cause
requirement by filing the Motion within the thirty-day search
period and by showing that Tull was surrendered before the
hearing of the Motion.
The filing of a timely motion under HRS § 804-51 does
not by itself satisfy the statute's requirements for vacating a
forfeiture judgment. The statute's plain language requires the
movant to show good cause why execution should not issue upon the
judgment. HRS § 804-51; Vaimili, 131 Hawai#i at 17, 313 P.3d at
706; cf. Ranger Ins., 83 Hawai#i at 124, 925 P.2d at 294 ("The
Surety's unsupported proposition that the pendency of [a] HRS
§ 804–51 motion . . . somehow tolled the statute's thirty-day
filing window . . . is without merit."). Good cause is not

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

satisfied where, as here, the defendant was surrendered after the
end of the thirty-day search period, absent "a showing of a
satisfactory reason for [the] defendant's failure to appear when
required." Camara, 81 Hawai#i at 330, 916 P.2d at 1231. No such
showing was made here. All in 1 did not show that
"uncontrollable circumstances" prevented Tull's appearance or any
other "satisfactory reason" for Tull's failure to appear. Id.
On this record, the Circuit Court did not abuse its discretion or
otherwise err in denying the Motion pursuant to HRS § 804-51.
All in 1 also contends that the Denial Order "de[nies]
the presumption of innocence, penalizes the sureties and [Tull],
restricts access to pretrial justice[,] and is inconsistent with
the history and tradition of the circuit courts." (Capitalization
altered.) All in 1 does not point to where in the record it
raised these issues. See Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure
Rule 28(b)(4). They were not raised in the Motion. All in 1's
related argument on appeal is therefore deemed waived. See State
v. Moses, 102 Hawai#i 449, 456, 77 P.3d 940, 947 (2003) ("As a
general rule, if a party does not raise an argument at trial,
that argument will be deemed to have been waived on appeal[.]").
For the reasons discussed above, we affirm the Order
Denying Motion to Set Aside Bail Forfeiture, Reinstate Then
Discharge Bond and/or Motion to Continue Hearing for Motion to
Set Aside Bail Forfeiture entered on August 2, 2024, in case nos.
1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX, 1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX, 1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX, and
1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, April 9, 2026.

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

6

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

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
09-APR-2026
08:53 AM
Dkt. 53 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
(CONSOLIDATED WITH CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX,
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, AND CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX)

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
DANIELLE K. KAHELE, also known as DANIELLE K. KANEAO,
and HEATHER TULL, also known as HEATHER O. TULL, and
HEATHER OWEN TULL, Defendants-Appellees,
and
ARTHUR LEE, dba ALL IN 1 BONDING,
Real Party In Interest-Appellant
(CASE NO. 1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX)

AND

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
DANIELLE KANEAO, and HEATHER TULL, Defendants-Appellees,
and
ARTHUR LEE, dba ALL IN 1 BONDING,
Real Party In Interest-Appellant
(CASE NO. 1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX)

AND

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
HEATHER TULL, Defendant-Appellee,
and
ARTHUR LEE, dba ALL IN 1 BONDING,
Real Party In Interest-Appellant
(CASE NO. 1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX)

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

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
HEATHER TULL, Defendant-Appellee,
and
ARTHUR LEE, dba ALL IN 1 BONDING,
Real Party In Interest-Appellant
(CASE NO. 1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX)

APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

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

Real Party in Interest-Appellant Arthur Lee, dba All in
1 Bonding (All in 1), appeals from the Order Denying Motion to
Set Aside Bail Forfeiture, Reinstate Then Discharge Bond and/or
Motion to Continue Hearing for Motion to Set Aside Bail
Forfeiture (Denial Order) entered on August 2, 2024, by the
Circuit Court of the First Circuit1/ (Circuit Court) in case nos.
1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX, 1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX, 1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX, and 1CPC-22-
0000556 (the Four Cases).2/
All in 1 posted a bail bond on behalf of Defendant
Heather Tull (Tull) in each of the Four Cases. When Tull failed
to appear for an April 22, 2024 trial call for the cases, the
Circuit Court issued a bench warrant for Tull's arrest and
ordered a forfeiture of her bail in each case. On April 26,
2024, the Circuit Court entered the Judgment and Order of
Forfeiture of Bail Bond (Forfeiture Judgment) in each case
pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 804-51.3/

1/
The Honorable Fa#auuga L. To#oto#o presided.
2/
On August 20, 2025, this court entered an order consolidating
appeal nos. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX (arising from case no. 1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX),
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX (arising from case no. 1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX), CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
(arising from case no. 1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX), and CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX (arising from
case no. 1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX), under CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX.
3/
HRS § 804-51 (Supp. 2023) provides, in relevant part:

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, surety or
sureties, and surety insurer or surety insurers on the bond,
(continued...)

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

On April 26, 2024, Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawai#i
(State) sent a letter via certified mail to All in 1 in each case
notifying All in 1 that the relevant bail bond had been forfeited
and enclosing a copy of the relevant Forfeiture Judgment. The
related proof of service in each case shows that the notice was
delivered to All in 1 on May 1, 2024, and All in 1 later
confirmed that it had received the notice "on or about" that
date.
On May 28, 2024, All in 1 filed a Motion to Set Aside
Bail Forfeiture, Reinstate Then Discharge Bond and/or Motion to
Continue Hearing for Motion to Set Aside Bail Forfeiture Judgment
(Motion) in each of the Four Cases. The Motion was set to be
heard on July 3, 2024.4/ All in 1 argued that the Motion was
timely, All in 1 was "still trying to search for [Tull] with an
active bounty hunter[,]" and pursuant to State v. Camara, 81
Hawai#i 324, 916 P.2d 1225 (1996), "good cause" existed for
setting aside the Forfeiture Judgments.
On July 10, 2024, Tull was arrested and the April 22,

3/
(...continued)
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 or
the surety insurer or surety insurers 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 or the surety insurer or
surety insurers 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, surety insurer or surety
insurers, 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, surety, or
surety insurer, 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.
4/
On June 21, 2024, the Circuit Court rescheduled the hearing to
July 12, 2024, due to its unavailability on July 3, 2024.

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

2024 bench warrant was served.5/
On July 12, 2024, the hearing on the Motion was held in
each of the Four Cases. Tull was in custody but not present at
the hearing. Following brief statements by All in 1 and the
State, which argued that All in 1 had not shown "good cause"
under HRS § 804-51, the Circuit Court denied the Motion.
On August 2, 2024, the Circuit Court entered the Denial
Order in each of the Four Cases. The court found in relevant
part: "Tull was arrested on July 10, 2024, for the bench warrant
issued by the court on April 22, 2024, which is forty days after
the search period expiration date of May 31, 2024."
On appeal, All in 1 contends that "the [C]ircuit
[C]ourt erred when it denied [All in 1's] Motion . . . pursuant
to Camara, the presumption of innocence, access to pretrial
justice, history/tradition of the courts across the state, and
[HRS] § 804-51."
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 All
in 1's contentions as follows, and affirm.
"[T]he determination of whether a principal or a surety
under a bail bond may secure relief from a judgment of
forfeiture, involves a question of law reviewable de novo."
State v. Flores, 88 Hawai#i 126, 130, 962 P.2d 1008, 1012 (1998)
(citing Camara, 81 Hawai#i at 329, 916 P.2d at 1230). "However,
a lower court's order denying relief from a judgment of bail bond
forfeiture on grounds that a surety has not, as required by HRS
§ 804–51, shown 'good cause why execution should not issue upon
the judgment' is reviewed for abuse of discretion." Id. (quoting
State v. Ranger Ins. Co., 83 Hawai#i 118, 122–24, 925 P.2d 288,
292–94 (1996)).
"[O]nce a bond is forfeited pursuant to HRS § 804-51, a
surety has thirty days from the time it receives notice of
forfeiture to set aside the forfeiture judgment[,]" referred to

5/
All in 1 states in its opening brief that it "was active in
securing the surrender and arrest of Tull." However, All in 1 does not point
to any evidence in the record that it was involved in "securing the surrender
and arrest of Tull."

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

as the "thirty-day search period." State v. Vaimili, 131 Hawai#i
9, 15, 313 P.3d 698, 704 (2013) (quoting Camara, 81 Hawai#i at
331, 916 P.2d at 1232). Specifically, "the surety is given
thirty days to file a motion showing good cause as to why the
judgment should not be executed[.]" Vaimili, 131 Hawai#i at 15,
313 P.3d at 704.
Here, there is no dispute that All in 1 filed the
Motion within the thirty-day search period. The issue is whether
the Motion showed good cause to set aside the Forfeiture
Judgment.
"Good cause" in this context "may be shown by the
defendant surrendering or being surrendered prior to the
expiration of the thirty-day search period." Camara, 81 Hawai#i
at 331, 916 P.2d at 1232; see Vaimili, 131 Hawai#i at 16, 313
P.3d at 705. The "good cause" requirement may also be satisfied
by showing, before the end of the thirty-day search period, "a
satisfactory reason for a defendant's failure to appear when
required." Camara, 81 Hawai#i at 330, 916 P.2d at 1231; see
Vaimili, 131 Hawai#i at 16 n.21, 313 P.3d at 705 n.21
(recognizing that "Camara also held that a surety could establish
good cause by showing that 'uncontrollable circumstances
prevented appearance' by the defendant").
Here, there is no dispute that Tull was surrendered
after the expiration of the thirty-day search period. Instead,
All in 1 argues that it satisfied the statutory good-cause
requirement by filing the Motion within the thirty-day search
period and by showing that Tull was surrendered before the
hearing of the Motion.
The filing of a timely motion under HRS § 804-51 does
not by itself satisfy the statute's requirements for vacating a
forfeiture judgment. The statute's plain language requires the
movant to show good cause why execution should not issue upon the
judgment. HRS § 804-51; Vaimili, 131 Hawai#i at 17, 313 P.3d at
706; cf. Ranger Ins., 83 Hawai#i at 124, 925 P.2d at 294 ("The
Surety's unsupported proposition that the pendency of [a] HRS
§ 804–51 motion . . . somehow tolled the statute's thirty-day
filing window . . . is without merit."). Good cause is not

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

satisfied where, as here, the defendant was surrendered after the
end of the thirty-day search period, absent "a showing of a
satisfactory reason for [the] defendant's failure to appear when
required." Camara, 81 Hawai#i at 330, 916 P.2d at 1231. No such
showing was made here. All in 1 did not show that
"uncontrollable circumstances" prevented Tull's appearance or any
other "satisfactory reason" for Tull's failure to appear. Id.
On this record, the Circuit Court did not abuse its discretion or
otherwise err in denying the Motion pursuant to HRS § 804-51.
All in 1 also contends that the Denial Order "de[nies]
the presumption of innocence, penalizes the sureties and [Tull],
restricts access to pretrial justice[,] and is inconsistent with
the history and tradition of the circuit courts." (Capitalization
altered.) All in 1 does not point to where in the record it
raised these issues. See Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure
Rule 28(b)(4). They were not raised in the Motion. All in 1's
related argument on appeal is therefore deemed waived. See State
v. Moses, 102 Hawai#i 449, 456, 77 P.3d 940, 947 (2003) ("As a
general rule, if a party does not raise an argument at trial,
that argument will be deemed to have been waived on appeal[.]").
For the reasons discussed above, we affirm the Order
Denying Motion to Set Aside Bail Forfeiture, Reinstate Then
Discharge Bond and/or Motion to Continue Hearing for Motion to
Set Aside Bail Forfeiture entered on August 2, 2024, in case nos.
1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX, 1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX, 1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX, and
1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, April 9, 2026.

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

6