State v. Copeland

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
29-DEC-2025
08:02 AM
Dkt. 40 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
GIBRAN K. COPELAND, Defendant-Appellant

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

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

Gibran K. Copeland appeals from the Circuit Court of
the First Circuit's Order denying his motion for supervised
release or to set bail.1 We have jurisdiction under the
collateral order exception.2 The law imposed a rebuttable
presumption that there was a serious risk Copeland would flee or
not appear as directed if he was released on bail. The issue
presented is whether the trial court abused its discretion by
finding that Copeland did not rebut the presumption. We conclude
the trial court acted within its discretion. We affirm the
Order.

1
The Honorable Catherine H. Remigio presided.
2
See State v. Johnson, 96 Hawai#i 462, 470 n.12, 32 P.3d 106, 114
n.12 (App. 2001) (noting the collateral order exception applies in criminal
cases to denials of pretrial motions to reduce bail).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

A grand jury indicted Copeland for Murder in the Second
Degree and Carrying or Use of Firearm in the Commission of a
Separate Felony. The grand jury bench warrant ordered him held
without bail. He pleaded not guilty. He moved for supervised
release or to set bail. The Order denying his motion was entered
on April 25, 2025. This appeal followed.
Bail may be denied if the defendant is charged with
murder in the second degree and there is a serious risk they will
flee. Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 804-3(b) (2014). If
convicted, Copeland was possibly subject to imprisonment for life
without the possibility of parole.3 Under those circumstances:

a rebuttable presumption arises that there is a serious risk
that the person will flee or will not appear as directed by
the court[.]

HRS § 804-3(c) (2014).
"The decision whether to grant a motion for release on
bail requires a judgment call by the trial court; and decisions
requiring a judgment call on the part of the trial court[] are
reviewed for an abuse of discretion." State v. Carter, 154
Hawai#i 96, 101, 546 P.3d 1210, 1215 (App. 2024) (cleaned up).
"The trial court abuses its discretion when it clearly exceeds
the bounds of reason or disregards rules or principles of law or
practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant." Id.
Copeland's motion suggested he "can live with his
parents while awaiting trial." The motion was heard on
February 25, 2025. Copeland, his mother Naomi Copeland, and
Honolulu Police Department detective Brent Sylvester testified.
Naomi is a 71-year old retiree. She "had passed out
someplace" and "was undergoing a lot of tests" on her brain and

3
Murder in the Second Degree is a felony for which the defendant is
sentenced under HRS § 706-656 (2014). HRS § 707-701.5(2) (2014). Under HRS
§ 706-656(2) (2014), persons convicted of second degree murder shall be
sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole except as
provided in HRS § 706-657. HRS § 706-657 (2014) provides for an enhanced
sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole under certain
circumstances.

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

heart. Sometimes, she hasn't felt well and had to sit down to
avoid passing out.
Naomi and her husband live in a rented one-bedroom
apartment. Her husband is 78 years old. He "travels a lot" and
is "gone, like, about six months out of the year."
Naomi testified Copeland could live with her and "He
can sleep on the living room." But she had not gotten her
landlord's permission for Copeland to live in the apartment.
When asked if she could help enforcing conditions of
Copeland's bail, Naomi stated "I mean, physically, it is up to
[Copeland]. I couldn't stop him if he wanted to [leave the
apartment]. But it's his own actions, and he would have to
suffer the consequences if he didn't follow it. I would tell him
and report him if I had to."
Detective Sylvester investigated Copeland's criminal
record. Copeland had seventeen criminal contempt of court
arrests.
Copeland testified he served in the Army and had a "100
percent service connected VA disability." He was discharged for
"schizoaffective disorder." He hears voices, and sees "things
that others don't see." He was told to take medication, but
"decided that a balanced lifestyle is a better solution." He
hasn't taken his medication for 10 years. When asked about his
contempt-of-court arrests, Copeland stated "I used to get a lot
of traffic tickets. So for some reason I didn't believe in
buying car insurance, and so I accumulated a bunch of no car
insurance tickets." Copeland said, "if I was written a ticket on
the court date, yeah, I guess I was ignoring them, and I didn't
take note of there being a court date on the ticket if there was
one."
When it announced its ruling, the trial court correctly
acknowledged that the HRS § 804-3(c) rebuttable presumption
applied. The court explained:

Now, the Defense has provided witnesses to try to
rebut that presumption. The first witness, Ms. Copeland,

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

the Court agrees with the State, is not an appropriate
sponsor given her age, given her frailty, given the fact
that she has no real knowledge or connection to this
defendant, who is her son, herself has said that she
believes that her son is houseless by choice, prefers living
on the streets, even though he has money, agrees he has
several storage units, that he once tried to store things at
her house, and she put that to an end. She believes that he
uses drugs. She apparently forgot that she knew who this
Christina person was and remembered later on.

And also her husband is not there, not enough for him
to be of any help. The landlord is not a person that is
going to assist because he hasn't even been told and may not
agree to Mr. Copeland living there with her. And we usually
require landlord permission and knowledge before that
occurs.
But aside from her as a possible sponsor, in which
case we are left with no sponsor, and Hawaii [Intake Service
Center] is not an appropriate sponsor, the things that
Ms. Copeland testified to indicates to the Court supportive
testimony to what the defendant himself has confirmed by his
testimony, he lived in an abandoned property, so he
consider[s] himself houseless. That he was instructed by
professionals to take medications, but he decided on his own
that a balanced lifestyle is a better solution. He knew he
had all of these tickets, but he was ignoring them. And so
he didn't go to court. This is indicative to the Court of a
person who is used to doing what he wants to do, not
necessarily what the law or what professionals tell him to
do. He has lived outside of the boundaries of society,
which is in itself not a crime. But I am identifying
whether or not he is going to follow court rules. And I
believe based on his testimony, based on his mother's
testimony, that he will not do so, certainly not when there
is inappropriate supervision.

But going back to the part that the Court is making
is, does [sic] the Defense rebutted the presumption that he
will flee, whether it's a serious risk of flight based on
the fact that the offense is punishable by the possibility
of life without parole. And the Court answers, no, the
defense has not rebutted that presumption.

The record contains substantial evidence of "a serious
risk that [Copeland] will flee or will not appear as directed by
the court" if he was released from custody. HRS § 804-3(c). The
trial court acted within its discretion by denying Copeland's
motion for supervised release or to set bail.
We need not address Copeland's contention that the
trial court erred by concluding he poses a danger to any person
or the community, because the HRS § 804-3(b)(1)-(4) factors are
alternative, not cumulative.

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

The April 25, 2025 Order Denying Defendant's Motion for
Supervised Release to Oahu Intake Service Center and/or Set Bail
is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, December 29, 2025.

On the briefs:
/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Harrison L. Kiehm, Presiding Judge
for Defendant-Appellant.
/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Loren J. Thomas, Associate Judge
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
City and County of Honolulu, /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
for Plaintiff-Appellee. Associate Judge

5