Stanley v. State

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

CAAP-10-0000070

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

CHARLES ANTHONY STANLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v.

STATE OF HAWAI'I, Respondent-Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

(S.P.P. NO. 10-1-0034 (Cr. No. 04-1-0049))

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

(By: Nakamura, C.J., Foley and Reifurth, JJ.)

Petitioner-Appellant Charles Anthony Stanley (Stanley)

appeals from the "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order

Denying Petition for Post-Conviction Relief, Filed June 3, 2010"

(Order) filed on September 9, 2010 in the Circuit Court of the

First Circuit1
(circuit court).

A jury convicted Stanley of Robbery in the Second

Degree, in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 708­
841(1)(a) (1993). The circuit court entered the Judgment of

Conviction and Sentence (Judgment) on February 24, 2005.

Stanley filed an appeal (No. 27144) from the Judgment,

contending that the circuit court erred by denying his two oral

motions for judgment of acquittal, allowing a juror to remain on

the jury, denying his Motion to Dismiss, and finding that he

1

The Honorable Michael D. Wilson presided.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

qualified as a repeat offender. This court filed a Summary

Disposition Order on October 24, 2006, affirming the Judgment.

On October 13, 2005, Stanley filed a Petition for Post-

Conviction Relief (First Petition) in the circuit court in S.P.P.

No. 05-1-0066, pursuant to Rule 40 of the Hawaii Rules of Penal

Procedure (HRPP). Stanley stated four claims: (1) denial of

effective assistance of counsel because defense counsel did not

get evidence from the evidence room and other locations in

preparation for trial, (2) conviction obtained by use of evidence

gained pursuant to an unconstitutional search and seizure, (3)

conviction obtained by use of evidence obtained pursuant to an

unlawful arrest, and (4) conviction obtained by unconstitutional

failure of the prosecution to disclose to Stanley evidence

favorable to him. On February 3, 2006, the circuit court denied

the First Petition. Stanley did not appeal the denial of the

First Petition.

On May 29, 2007, Stanley filed a Petition to Vacate,

Set Aside, or Correct Judgment or to Release Petitioner from

Custody (Second Petition), pursuant to HRPP Rule 40, in the

circuit court in S.P.P. 07-1-0023. Stanley stated seven claims:

(1) violation of his right to due process and fair trial by the

failure to introduce a black bag into evidence and to allow the

jury to inspect the black bag during deliberations; (2)

prosecutorial misconduct because the prosecutor (a) failed to

introduce the black bag into evidence and (b) raised his hands

into a fighting stance without holding the black bag during the

prosecutor's closing argument; (3) ineffective assistance of

trial counsel because counsel failed to get the black bag

admitted into evidence, obtain the store's video surveillance

tape for trial, subpoena Police Officer Leong (who viewed the

videotape) and Brandon Wong, prepare for trial, and file a timely

request for a new trial; (4) unconstitutional seizure of his body

when security officers grabbed him during the arrest, (5)

criminalization of his involuntary act of responding to the use

2

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

of force; (6) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel because

appellate counsel failed to raise the above issues on appeal; and

(7) unconstitutional selection of a jury that excluded African-

American jurors. On September 27, 2007, the circuit court denied

the Second Petition. Stanley appealed, and on April 21, 2009,

this court issued a Memorandum Opinion, affirming the denial of

the Second Petition.

On June 3, 2010, Stanley filed a Petition for Post-

Conviction Relief (Third Petition) (S.P.P. 10-1-0034), pursuant

to HRPP Rule 40. Stanley claimed:

A. Ground one: THE JUDGMENT WAS OBTAINED AND SENTENCE

IMPOSED IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE III, § 1, HAWAII STATE

CONSTITUTION. U.S.C.A. 14.

Supporting FACTS . . .: THE JURY VERDICT IS CONTRARY

TO ACT 68, SESSION LAW OF 1998, A DEFECTIVE VERDICT AS

AMENDED TO "USE OF FORCE" consistent with ASSAULT [see

Addendum]

B. Ground two: THE SENTENCE IS ILLEGAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

COURT DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION, AS

MANDATED BY ART. III, § 1, Under HRS § 708-841(1)(a)

Supporting FACTS . . .: JUDGMENT REST ON "A FIGHTING

STANCE" under HRS § 708-841(1)(a) which is objectively

in opposition to Legislative expanded definition of

use of force for robbery [See Attached Pages]

C. Ground three: PETITIONER'S RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED UNDER

ARTICLE 1, § 5, OF THE HAWAII STATE CONSTITUTION TO

DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW.

Supporting FACTS . . .: A MANIFEST ERROR OCCURRED

DURING TRIAL WHICH EFFECTED PETITIONERS SUBSTANTIAL

RIGHTS. "See Separate memorandum "Complaint failed to

state Offense"

D. Ground four: JURISDICTION CANNOT BE WAIVED IN

COMPLAINT "STRUCTURAL DEFECTS REQUIRE AUTOMATIC

REVERSAL" UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT 6.

Supporting FACTS . . .: Complaint Failed to allege all

essential elements of offense as amended by

Legislature, which removed "Vague term uses force"

Fatal to complaint. see [Separate Memorandum

attached].

On June 22, 2010, Stanley filed a "Motion to Add to

Rule (H.R.P.P. 40 Petition) Ground Five HRPP 40(e)

'Jurisdictional Defect in Complaint, Judgments and Sentence'

3

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

Complaint Failed to Include HRS § 708-841(1)(b)," which added

Ground Five:

GROUND FIVE: THE COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE

CONVICTION BASED ON § 708-841(1)(b), WHICH VIOLATED ART. 1,

§ 14 HAWAII STATE CONSTITUTION.

SUPPORTING FACTS: THE COMPLAINT FAILED TO INCLUDE THE

PERSON THREATENS THE IMMINENT USE OF FORCE AGAINST THE

PERSON OF ANYONE WHO IS PRESENT WITH INTENT TO COMPEL

ACQUIESCENCE TO THE TAKING OR ESCAPING WITH THE PROPERTY; OR

(c) THE PERSON RECKLESSLY INFLICTS SERIOUS BODILY INJURY

UPON ANOTHER. SEE APPENDIX NO. 3 THE COMPLAINT, WITH

EXHIBITS INCLUDED IN SEPARATE MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF RULE

40. PETITIONER DOES INCORPORATE ALL ARGUMENTS, CITATIONS

AND AUTHORITIES, EXHIBITS SUBMITTED IN RULE 40 DATED 5-17­
2010, DOES REQUEST GROUND FIVE BE ADDED TO PETITION BEFORE

THE COURT FOR REVIEW.

On September 9, 2009, the Circuit Court denied

Stanley's Third Petition. Stanley timely appealed.

On appeal, Stanley contends:

1. The Judgment was obtained and sentence imposed in
violation of Article III, § 1, Hawai'i State Constitution.
2. The sentence is illegal, the circuit court did not

have subject matter jurisdiction, as mandated by Article III,

§ 1, under HRS § 708-841(1)(a).

3. Stanley's rights were violated under Article 1,
§ 5, of the Hawai'i State Constitution to due process and equal
protection of the law.
4. Jurisdiction cannot be waived in a Complaint,

"Structural Defects require automatic reversal," United States

Constitutional Amendment 6.

5. The circuit court did not have jurisdiction to
enforce conviction based on § 708-841(1)(b), which violated
Article 1, § 14, of the Hawai'i State Constitution.
6. The circuit court did not properly deny Stanley's

Rule 40, where the facts prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a

"Threatened use of Force" HRS § 708-841(1)(b) was not within the

complaint, and the court exceeded its subject-matter jurisdiction

by its generic definition of use of force.

4

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

7. The circuit court erroneously used HRPP Rule

40(a)(3) to procedurally default granting relief, where the trial

court exceeded its subject matter jurisdiction.

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 by the parties, as

well as the relevant statutory and case law, we resolve Stanley's

points of error as follows:

(1) The circuit court did not lack subject matter
jurisdiction. HRS §§ 603-1 (Supp. 2010) and 603-21.5 (Supp.
2003). "[P]roof that an event occurred in the City and County of
Honolulu or on the Island of Oahu is proof that it occurred
within the first judicial circuit." State v. Correa, 5 Haw. App.
644, 650, 706 P.2d 1321, 1325 (1985). The Complaint against
Stanley alleged that he committed Robbery in the Second Degree in
the City and County of Honolulu. Robbery in the Second Degree is
a criminal offense under the laws of the State of Hawai'i as
specified by HRS § 708-841(1)(a). The City and County of
Honolulu is within the first judicial circuit. Stanley was
charged and tried in the first judicial circuit. Therefore, the
circuit court did not lack subject matter jurisdiction.
(2) A charge of Robbery in the Second Degree which
does not define the term "force" is readily comprehensible to a
person of common understanding; therefore, the charge was
sufficient. "Force" is consistent with its commonly understood
meaning and provided Stanley with notice of what was being
charged. State v. Mita, 124 Hawai'i 385, 392, 245 P.3d 458, 465
(2010). Therefore, the charge against Stanley was not
insufficient, and the circuit court did not lack jurisdiction to
enter a judgment of conviction for Robbery in the Second Degree.
(3) To the extent that Stanley stated any claims not

based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction or lack of

jurisdiction because the charge was insufficient, those claims

are waived. Stanley did not prove the existence of extraordinary

5

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

circumstances to justify his failure to raise the issues in his

direct appeal or two prior HRPP Rule 40 petitions. Therefore,

relief is not available pursuant to HRPP Rule 40. HRPP Rule

40(a)(3).

Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the "Findings of Fact,

Conclusions of Law, and Order Denying Petition for Post-

Conviction Relief, Filed June 3, 2010," filed on September 9,

2010 in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, June 21, 2011.

On the briefs:

Charles Anthony Stanley,
Petitioner-Appellant pro se.

Delanie D. Prescott-Tate, Chief Judge
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
City and County of Honolulu,
for Respondent-Appellee.

Associate Judge

Associate Judge

6