State v. Oili

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
28-MAY-2024
07:53 AM
Dkt. 35 SO

NOS. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX and 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.
BRONSON LEE OILI, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 3PC111000388)

and

CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
BRONSON-LEE OILI, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 3PC141000474)

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

Defendant-Appellant Bronson Lee Oili (Oili) appeals

from the Orders of Resentencing entered by the Circuit Court of
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

the Third Circuit (circuit court) in 3PC111000388 (2011 case)

and 3PC141000474 (2014 case) on July 20, 2023.1

On appeal, Oili raises a single point of error,

contending that the circuit court erred in imposing consecutive

sentences, with respect to the 2011 case and the 2014 case,

amounting to a fifteen-year term of imprisonment. Upon careful

review of the record and relevant legal authorities, we resolve

Oili's point of error as follows.

Oili was charged in the 2011 case with: (1)

Terroristic Threatening in the First Degree, in violation of

Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) §§ 707-715(1) and 707-716(1)(e);

(2) Burglary in the First Degree, in violation of HRS § 708-

810(1)(c); (3) Place to Keep Unloaded Firearms Other Than

Pistols and Revolvers, in violation of HRS § 134-24(a); and (4)

Assault in the Third Degree, in violation of HRS § 707-

712(1)(a). Oili pled guilty to all four charges, and was

sentenced to probation in January 2012.

While on probation, Oili was charged in the 2014 case

with: (1) and (2) Assault Against a Law Enforcement Officer in

the First Degree, in violation of HRS § 707-712.5(1)(a); (3)

Accidents Involving Damage to Vehicle or Property, in violation

of HRS § 291C-13; (4) Driving Without a License, in violation of

1 The Honorable Peter K. Kubota presided.
2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

HRS § 286-102(b); (5) Resisting Arrest, in violation of

HRS § 710-1026(1); and (6) Conditions of Operation and

Registration of Motor Vehicles, commonly referred to as no No-

Fault Insurance, in violation of HRS § 431:10C-104(a), creating

the 2014 case. On June 1, 2015, Oili entered no contest pleas,

and the court found Oili guilty of counts 1, 2, 3, and 5. Oili

was sentenced to four years of probation in counts 1 and 2, ten

days jail in count 3, and one-year jail in count 5, with credit

for time served.

Following Oili's arrest in the 2014 case, the State

moved in the 2011 case for revocation of Oili's probation, and

for resentencing. In June 2015, after Oili's conviction in the

2014 case, the circuit court resentenced Oili to a new five-year

term of probation for his 2011 conviction.

In July 2017, the State moved for revocation of Oili's

probation and resentencing, in both the 2011 and 2014 cases,

after Oili violated the terms and conditions of his probation.

The circuit court resentenced Oili to a new five-year term of

probation in the 2011 case, and a new four-year term of

probation in the 2014 case.

In June 2019, the State once more moved for revocation

of Oili's probation and resentencing, in both the 2011 and 2014

cases, after Oili again violated the terms and conditions of his

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

probation. The circuit court revoked Oili's probation, and

resentenced him to a ten-year term of imprisonment in the 2011

case, and a five-year term of imprisonment in the 2014 case,

with the prison terms to run consecutively. The circuit court

entered an Amended Order of Resentencing, and Oili appealed to

this court. On December 22, 2021, this court, in CAAP-20-

0000712, vacated Oili's sentence, and remanded for resentencing,

on the grounds that the circuit court failed to state its

reasoning as to why Oili was sentenced to consecutive terms of

imprisonment.

On remand, at Oili's resentencing hearing, the circuit

court first addressed the sentencing factors set forth in

HRS § 706-606 (2014), to determine that Oili should be sentenced

to a term of imprisonment rather than probation. The circuit

court explained its rationale to Oili, as follows,

[A]s mentioned you've been on probation since 2012
and that never work [sic]. And I do see a change in you,
but the –- the thing that's not good for you is that the
prison life has been good for you in that it's –- it's
assumably been keeping you sober, clean and sober from
drugs and in a controlled lifestyle that's better for you.

We –- we tried with you at probation. We tried
substance abuse treatment on probation, but it doesn't work
when you're free, and that's the problem. So the only
question I have here, um, well, I'll go through the other
factors, too, first just to make sure we make a clean
record.

The -– the factors of the sentence being imposed to
reflect the seriousness of the offenses, promote respect
for the law and provide punishment for the law.

The first [case] was Terroristic Threatening. That's
back in -– from 2011 and a firearms charge, and the second
4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

case was the assault against a law enforcement officer in
2014.

After you were convicted as a felon you know that
you're not supposed to have any kind of firearms, and
nonetheless in 2017 you were convicted of ownership
possession of a firearm and luckily somehow got pled down
to a Class C [felony]. And in the 20 case it was a
shooting at the Hilo Terrace Apartments, and that case you
got pled all the way down to a misdemeanor.

So all these kinds of things, it's the seriousness of
the crimes and to provide punishment, it is not unfair to
ask that you gotta spend time in prison for this.

Now, the other -– another factor is whether or not
the sentence affords adequate deterrence to criminal
conduct.

You were on probation since 2012. The probation
sentence did not deter you from criminal conduct and worse
yet the recurring cases were with drugs, and according to
this factor of 2(b), you know, a prison sentence is
required.

Now, under 2(c) the Court needs to consider the
protection of the public from further crimes, and that's
the –- that's the main thing of every probation sentence is
that you shall not commit another federal or state crime.

So from your first case you got -– you committed and
got convicted of three more crimes. And the protection of
the public especially is that there's innocent people that
could have gotten shot at the -– at the Hilo Terrace
Apartments, and the police officers and, um, who effectuate
a lawful arrest get injured trying to take you into
custody. That leans towards having to be incarcerated.

Now, the need for the sentence to provide educational
training or –- or other treatment. It's clear that you
need a drug treatment, and you were given the opportunities
out in the public to do it while on probation many, many
times over eight years and that didn't turn out okay. And
I do believe prison will get you drug treatment at some
point in time in -– in your programming once you are
sentenced.

And the problem for you, Mr. Oili, is that treatment
and freedom don't work together. You can't accomplish it.
Even with all the assistance of the probation department
and all the help in the treatment facilities it didn't work
while you're free.

Now, the kind of sentences that are available that I
do consider basically it's probation or it's prison. We
tried probation many, many times from Judge Nakamura's time
5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

since 2012 and that hasn't worked and it will not work, and
the last –- the last straw was the 2020 case with the, um,
the firearm.

The circuit court then addressed whether a concurrent

or consecutive sentence was warranted. The circuit court

explained,

I'll say these things in considering whether or not
I'm gonna give Mr. Oili a concurrent sentence or
consecutive sentence.

Your dangerousness in the public is of great concern.
It was always a concern with the probation office and with
this Court. And while on probation and trying to deal with
your drug problem you kept going back to guns, and that's –
- that's of greatest concern to me is that there's
assaultive behavior with the police, possession of firearms
and continued drug use.

And you made all your pleas for chances again and
again, and you asked your probation officer not to give up
on you and –- and they didn't and they worked to try and
get you into treatment programs. And what happened was
after your probation was revoked again you recommit a
violent and dangerous offense by shooting at Mr., um, at
that, um, at the Hilo Terrace Apartment.

The LSI assessment conducted on May 15, 2020 results
in the highest scores for criminogenic factors, being
criminal history, education, employment and financial. You
scored a 36 which recommends a high level of supervision.

It's clear you're not probationable. You're
convicted -– you're a convicted felon with continued drug
use and guns, and it's for the protection of the public
that I have to send you to prison.

And, you know, if I gave you a concurrent sentence
what that does is it allows you to add on crime after crime
after crime and you pay for it all one time and that's not
fair to the public or the criminal justice system, and for
the protection of the public I will have to impose a
consecutive sentence. But as you folks had agreed before
the [2014 case] and 17-535 [case][2] can be concurrent with
each other.

2 Oili has not appealed his five-year prison sentence in 3CPC-17-
0000535, that the circuit court ruled would run concurrently with the five-
year sentence imposed in the 2014 case.
6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

So in 3CP- 17-535 [sic] I sentence you to a term of 5
years[] imprisonment; [the 2014 case], 5 years in prison
concurrent with each other.

Now, as to [the 2011 case] I'm sentencing you to a
term of 5 years as to Counts 1 and 3 and 10 years as to
Count 2. All counts in [the 2011 case] shall be concurrent
with each other but shall be consecutive as to the terms in
17-535 and [the 2014 case].

So 5 –- 17 and [the 2014 case]shall be concurrent
with each other consecutive to the [2011]case so that is 10
years, plus 5 years, and this is based on the need to
protect the public, and the other factors which I stated
above is the repeated resort to drugs and firearms after
being revoked on probation.

(Emphasis added.)

We review the circuit court's Orders of Resentencing,

which sentenced Oili to consecutive ten- and five-year terms of

imprisonment in the 2011 and 2014 cases, for abuse of

discretion.

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 of discretion in its
decision. Factors which indicate a plain and manifest
abuse of discretion are arbitrary or capricious action by
the judge and a rigid refusal to consider the defendant's
contentions. And, generally, to constitute an abuse it
must appear that the court clearly exceeded the bounds of
reason or disregarded rules or principles of law or
practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant.

State v. Kong, 131 Hawaiʻi 94, 101, 315 P.3d 720, 727 (2013)

(cleaned up).

Pursuant to HRS § 706-668.5(1) (Supp. 2015), a

sentencing court has discretion to impose consecutive or

concurrent sentences. In making this determination, the court

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

must consider the factors set forth in HRS § 706-606.3 However,

"[t]he weight to be given the factors set forth in HRS § 706-606

in imposing sentence is a matter generally left to the

discretion of the sentencing court, taking into consideration

the circumstances of each case." State v. Akana, 10 Haw.App.

381, 386, 876 P.2d 1331, 1334 (1994). "Absent clear evidence to

the contrary, it is presumed that a sentencing court will have

considered all factors before imposing concurrent or consecutive

terms of imprisonment under HRS § 706-606." Kong, 131 Hawaiʻi at

102, 315 P.3d at 728 (cleaned up).

Nevertheless, the "circuit courts must state on the

record at the time of sentencing the reasons for imposing a

consecutive sentence." State v. Hussein, 122 Hawaiʻi 495, 510,

229 P.3d 313, 328 (2010). Hussein requires that the circuit

3 HRS § 706-606 provides four factors for the court to consider in
imposing a sentence:

(1) The nature and circumstances of the offense and the
history and characteristics of the defendant;
(2) The need for the sentence imposed:
(a) To reflect the seriousness of the offense, to
promote respect for law, and to provide just
punishment for the offense;
(b) To afford adequate deterrence to criminal
conduct;
(c) To protect the public from further crimes of
the defendant; and
(d) To provide the defendant with needed
educational or vocational training, medical
care, or other correctional treatment in the
most effective manner;
(3) The kinds of sentences available; and
(4) The need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities
among defendants with similar records who have been
found guilty of similar conduct.
8
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

court (1) identify the facts or circumstances within the range

of statutory factors it should have considered, and (2) confirm

that the decision was deliberate, rational, and fair. See

Lewi v. State, 145 Hawaiʻi 333, 350, 452 P.3d 330, 347 (2019).

On this record, we conclude that the circuit court

sufficiently identified the facts and circumstances that

provided the basis for its imposition of a consecutive prison

sentence under the sentencing factors set forth in HRS § 706-

606, and it confirmed that the decision was "deliberate,

rational, and fair." We find that the circuit court articulated

a meaningful rationale for each consecutive sentence. State v.

Bautista, 153 Hawaiʻi 284, 291, 535 P.3d 1029, 1036 (2023) ("A

court's rationale must be tethered to each consecutive

sentence.")

The circuit court extensively considered the need for

Oili's sentences to reflect the seriousness of his offenses, to

promote respect for the law, to deter other criminal conduct, to

provide just punishment, to protect the public from further

crimes of the defendant, and to provide educational training or

treatment. The circuit court considered, inter alia, the

seriousness of Oili's 2011 conviction for Terroristic

Threatening, and his 2014 conviction for assaulting a law

enforcement officer, the fact that he was convicted of

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

committing additional crimes after these convictions, and his

continued use of drugs and illegal possession of firearms. The

circuit court further explained that its imposition of

consecutive terms of imprisonment for Oili's 2011 and 2014

convictions "is based on the need to protect the public, and the

other factors which I stated above is the repeated resort to

drugs and firearms after being revoked on probation."

We conclude that the circuit court's statements at the

sentencing hearing clearly explained its rationale for imposing

consecutive terms of imprisonment. As the circuit court

concluded, Oili was placed on probation multiple times, and he

was given multiple chances for rehabilitation. However, his

continued commission of crimes, use of drugs, and illegal

possession of firearms demonstrated that "[i]t's clear [Oili is]

not probationable." The circuit court then determined that,

given these facts and circumstances, the imposition of

consecutive terms of imprisonment was necessary to protect the

public.

10
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the circuit

court's Orders of Resentencing entered in 3PC111000388 and

3PC141000474.

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

On the briefs: /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Presiding Judge
Walter J. Rodby,
for Defendant-Appellant. /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Associate Judge
Shannon M. Kagawa,
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
County of Hawai‘i Associate Judge
for Plaintiff-Appellee.

11