State v. Wilson

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
28-MAR-2024
08:21 AM
Dkt. 105 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
(Consolidated with NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX)

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
PULETUA WILSON, Defendant-Appellant

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

and

CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
PULETUA WILSON, Defendant-Appellant

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

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Wadsworth, Presiding Judge, Nakasone and Guidry, JJ.)

Defendant-Appellant Puletua Wilson (Wilson) appeals in

CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX from the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence

(Judgment), filed by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(circuit court) on November 15, 2022,1 for Manslaughter in

violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 707-702(1)(a)

(2014).2 Wilson appeals in CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX from the circuit

court's Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration of Sentence

Filed on February 10, 2023, entered on January 17, 2024.3

This case involves an October 2017 car accident in

which Wilson, who was driving the car, swerved off a cliff. His

passenger, Troy Kahoʻoilihala, Jr. (Kahoʻoilihala) was ejected

from the car and died. In December 2018, Wilson was charged by

indictment with Manslaughter. A jury found Wilson guilty as

charged in July 2022. In November 2022, the circuit court

sentenced Wilson to an indeterminate prison term of 20 years.

Wilson argues five points of error on appeal. In

CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX,4 he contends that the circuit court erred by:

1 The Honorable Paul B.K. Wong presided.

2 HRS § 707-702(1)(a) states, in pertinent part, "[a] person
commits the offense of manslaughter if . . . [t]he person recklessly causes
the death of another person[.]"

3 CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX was consolidated with CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX on
March 13, 2024, under CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX. Prior to consolidation, this court
temporarily remanded CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX to the circuit court for entry of a
written and signed order disposing of the motion to reconsider. The circuit
court entered the written and signed order on January 17, 2024. Wilson's
appeal in CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX is timely taken from the January 17, 2024 order.

4 Wilson fails to present any argument on the points of error that
he lists as 3 and 5, and we therefore disregard them. Kahoʻohanohano v. Dep't
of Hum. Servs., State of Hawaiʻi, 117 Hawaiʻi 262, 297 n.37, 178 P.3d 538, 573
n.37 (2008) (the appellate court will "disregard a particular contention if
the appellant makes no discernible argument in support of that position");
Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) 28(b)(7) ("Points not argued may
be deemed waived."). The four points of error on which Wilson presents
argument are renumbered and addressed in turn.

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

(1) denying Wilson's motions to dismiss "for pre-indictment

delay and for speedy-trial and Rule-48 delay"; (2) denying

Wilson's motion to quash the State's search warrant authorizing

"buccal swabs and DNA testing[,]" and allowing the testimony of

the State's DNA expert; (3) denying Wilson's motions for

judgment of acquittal, and affirming the jury verdict "despite

insufficient evidence of reckless intent"; and (4) "wrongly

balanc[ing] the probation factors under HRS § 706-621[,]" and

"fail[ing] to state on the record its reasoning under HRS § 706-

606 for the harshest sentence available – twenty years of

prison." In CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, he contends that the circuit court

erred by denying his motion for reconsideration of his

indeterminate 20-year prison sentence.5

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs

submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to

the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we resolve

Wilson's points of error as follows:

(1) Wilson contends that the circuit court erred in

denying his January 2020 Motion to Dismiss Indictment for

Violation of Defendant's Rights to Due Process and to a Fair

Trial (January 2020 motion), and his February 2020 Motion to

Dismiss for Pre-Indictment Delay, or in the Alternative, for

Violation of Hawaiʻi Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 48

5 We address the single point of error that Wilson raises in
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX in section (5) below.
3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(February 2020 motion). Wilson's January 2020 motion alleged

that the pre-indictment delay violated his Due Process rights;

Wilson's February 2020 motion alleged a violation of HRPP

Rule 48 and his right to a speedy trial.

In August 2020, the circuit court entered its Findings

of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Denying Defendant's Motion

to Dismiss for Pre-Indictment Delay, or in the Alternative, for

Violation of HRPP Rule 48. The record reflects that the parties

had stipulated to the circuit court's 48 findings of fact.

"[W]hether those facts fall within HRPP 48(b)'s exclusionary

provisions is a question of law, the determination of which is

freely reviewable pursuant to the 'right/wrong' test." State v.

Hernane, 145 Hawaiʻi 444, 449, 454 P.3d 385, 390 (2019) (citation

omitted).

Consistent with the stipulated facts, the circuit

court determined that Wilson had not demonstrated that the pre-

indictment delay caused him actual substantial prejudice.

State v. Higa, 102 Hawaiʻi 183, 187, 74 P.3d 6, 10 (2003) ("When

a defendant alleges a violation of due process based on a

preindictment delay, the court must employ a balancing test,

considering actual substantial prejudice to the defendant

against the reasons asserted for the delay.") (citation

omitted).

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

Moreover, the circuit court concluded that, of the 441

calendar days that had elapsed from the time of his indictment

to the filing of his February 2020 motion, Wilson had executed

and filed written HRPP Rule 48 and speedy trial waivers for 372

of those days. Given those waivers, which the circuit court

concluded it "cannot ignore[,]" Wilson did not suffer pre-trial

delay in violation of HRPP Rule 48 or his speedy trial rights.6

See HRPP 48(c)(3) (excluding from the computation of time

"periods that delay the commencement of trial and are caused by

a continuance granted at the request or with the consent of the

defendant or defendant's counsel").

The circuit court's conclusions were not wrong. On

this record, the circuit court did not err in denying Wilson's

motions to dismiss.

(2) We resolve Wilson's contentions regarding the DNA

evidence as follows. First, Wilson asserts that the circuit

court erred in "den[ying] [Wilson]'s motion to quash [the

State]'s search warrant authorizing, four years into the case,

buccal swabs and DNA testing on [Wilson][.]" Aside from a

conclusory statement about "the lateness of the [State]'s

request" for DNA gathering, Wilson provides no legal support for

6 Wilson does not deny that he consented to these waivers and
continuances of trial. He contends instead that his consent was "coerced"
due to the State's failure to timely disclose discovery materials, and relies
on the mere fact of the State's alleged delay, without pointing to evidence
of coercion.

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

his argument, and it is therefore deemed waived. See HRAP

Rule 28(b)(7).

Second, Wilson did not object to the circuit court's

admission of DNA expert Michelle Amorin's testimony.

"[O]bjections to the admission of incompetent evidence, which a

party failed to raise at trial, are generally not subject to

plain error review." State v. Metcalfe, 129 Hawaiʻi 206, 225,

297 P.3d 1062, 1081 (2013) (citation omitted). We therefore do

not consider Wilson's contention, raised for the first time on

appeal, that the circuit court erred by admitting the DNA

expert's testimony, including evidence relating to "statistical

analysis."

(3) Wilson contends that the circuit court erred in

denying Wilson's motions for judgment of acquittal because the

record contains insufficient evidence to establish Wilson's

"reckless intent[,]" and because Kahoʻoilihala's "death by

ejection" was "too remote or accidental" to be within the risk

of which Wilson was aware.

The standard to be applied by the trial court in ruling
upon a motion for a judgment of acquittal is whether, upon
the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the
prosecution and in full recognition of the province of the
[trier of fact], a reasonable mind might fairly conclude
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. An appellate court
employs the same standard of review.

State v. Carroll, 146 Hawaiʻi 138, 150, 456 P.3d 502, 514 (2020)

(quoting State v. Keawe, 107 Hawaiʻi 1, 4, 108 P.3d 304, 307

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

(2005)) (brackets in quotation). Applying this standard, we

determine that Wilson's contention lacks merit.

Evidence was adduced by the State at trial that, prior

to the car accident, Wilson was "intoxicated[,]" "stumbling,"

and "slurring when [he was] talking" prior to the time he

"jumped into the driver's seat." Moreover, Wilson "was

speeding" and "swerving" over "dips" in the road. One witness

testified that Wilson was driving "[m]aybe like 100 [mph], I'm

not too sure, but I was going like probably 80, and I still

couldn't catch up to them." At one point, the driver and

passenger in the car following the vehicle driven by Wilson was

"on the phone with 911" to report that Wilson was "drinking and

driving" and asking that "somebody [be sent] out to stop them

because we couldn't stop them." While on this call, "[the car

Wilson was driving] did end up crashing, colliding with another

vehicle and going off the Cliff."

On this record, the circuit court did not err by

denying the motions for judgment of acquittal.

(4) Wilson contends that the circuit court abused its

discretion in sentencing Wilson to an indeterminate 20-year

prison term, instead of probation. "A sentencing judge

generally has broad discretion in imposing a sentence. The

applicable standard of review for sentencing or resentencing

matters is whether the court committed plain and manifest abuse

7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

of discretion in its decision." State v. Canosa, 152 Hawaiʻi

145, 154, 523 P.3d 1059, 1068 (2023) (cleaned up).

Wilson was convicted of the class A offense of

manslaughter. HRS § 707-702(1)(a). The circuit court thus,

pursuant to HRS §§ 706-620 (2014)7 and 706-659 (2014),8 had the

discretion to sentence Wilson to either probation or an

indeterminate prison sentence of 20 years. In imposing a

sentence, the circuit court considered the factors set forth in

HRS § 706-606 (2014) and, with respect to probation, HRS § 706-

621 (2014). HRS § 706-606(3) ("The court, in determining the

particular sentence to be imposed, shall consider . . . [t]he

kinds of sentences available[.]"); State v. Hussein, 122 Hawaiʻi

495, 500-01, 229 P.3d 313, 318-19 (2010) ("A sentencing court

must consider all sentencing options, since such consideration

is mandated by HRS § 706-606(3).").

The record reflects that the circuit court considered

all ten probation factors set forth in HRS § 706-621(2). Among

other things, the circuit court found that, with respect to

HRS § 706-621(2)(a), "here the conduct resulted in the death of

7 HRS § 706-620 states, in relevant part, "[a] defendant who has
been convicted of a crime may be sentenced to a term of probation unless
. . . (2) The crime is a class A felony, except class A felonies defined
. . . by section 707-702[.]"

8 HRS § 706-659 states, in relevant part, "[a] person who has been
convicted of a class A felony defined in . . . section 707-702, may be
sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment. . . . When ordering such
a sentence, the court shall impose the maximum length of imprisonment which
shall be twenty years."
8
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

another person, and there can be no greater loss and no greater

harm than that." The circuit court determined that this factor,

among others, weighed against probation. The circuit court thus

considered, inter alia, "[t]he need for the sentence imposed"

"[t]o reflect the seriousness of the offense," "and to provide

just punishment for the offense[.]" HRS § 706-606(2)(a). In so

doing, the circuit court "articulated a meaningful rationale for

the sentence in light of the factors set forth in HRS § 706-

606." State v. Kong, 131 Hawaiʻi 94, 104, 315 P.3d 720, 730

(2013) (quotation omitted).

On this record, we conclude that the circuit court did

not abuse its discretion in sentencing Wilson to an

indeterminate 20-year prison sentence.

(5) Wilson contends that the circuit court "erred

where it denied [Wilson]'s motion for reconsideration of

sentence after the Court wrongly balanced the probation factors

under HRS § 706-621 and thereafter issued the harshest sentence

available – twenty years of prison."

"A circuit court's ruling with regard to a party's

motion for reconsideration is reviewed on appeal for an abuse of

discretion." State v. Oughterson, 99 Hawaiʻi 244, 253, 54 P.3d

415, 424 (2002) (citation omitted). Wilson's motion for

reconsideration did not raise a new argument that could not have

been presented earlier, but instead reiterated his contention

9
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

that the factors set forth in HRS § 706-621 weighed in favor of

probation. Amfac, Inc. v. Waikiki Beachcomber Inv. Co., 74 Haw.

85, 114, 839 P.2d 10, 27 (1992) ("The purpose of a motion for

reconsideration is to allow the parties to present new evidence

and/or arguments that could not have been presented . . .

earlier[.]"). We conclude, on this record and for the reasons

set forth in section (4) supra, that the circuit court did not

abuse its discretion in denying Wilson's motion for

reconsideration.

For the foregoing reasons, the circuit court's

Judgment of Conviction and Sentence, filed on November 15, 2022,

and the Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration of Sentence

Filed on February 10, 2023, entered on January 17, 2024, are

affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, March 28, 2024.

On the briefs:
/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Kai Lawrence, Presiding Judge
for Defendant-Appellant.
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Stephen K. Tsushima, Associate Judge
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
City and County of Honolulu /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
for Plaintiff-Appellee. Associate Judge

10