State v. Holland-Dornath

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
26-AUG-2024
07:51 AM
Dkt. 67 SO
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
DAKOTA HOLLAND-DORNATH, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 1PC151001241)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Hiraoka and Wadsworth, JJ.)

Defendant-Appellant Dakota Holland-Dornath (Holland-

Dornath) appeals from the (1) May 5, 2021 Order of Resentencing,

Revocation of Probation, Notice of Entry and (2) June 7, 2021

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Re: Motion for

Revocation of Probation, Filed on February 11, 2021 (Order re

Motion for Revocation), entered by the Circuit Court of the First

Circuit (Circuit Court).1

Holland-Dornath raises a single point of error on

appeal, contending that the Circuit Court erred in granting

Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawaii's [(State's)] February 11,

2021 Motion for Revocation of Probation (Motion for Revocation)

because none of the post-resentencing motions (except one filed

on February 21, 2020) were tolling motions, and therefore

1
The Honorable Matthew J. Viola presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Holland-Dornath's probationary term had expired before the Motion

for Revocation was filed.

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, we

resolve Holland-Dornath's point of error as follows:

Holland-Dornath argues that HRS §§ 706-625(1), (4)

(2014) and 706-627(1) (2014), read in pari materia, exclude

"motions to modify" from motions that toll a defendant's
probation. HRS § 706-625 provides, in pertinent part:
§ 706-625 Revocation, modification of probation
conditions. (1) The court, on application of a probation
officer, the prosecuting attorney, the defendant, or on its
own motion, after a hearing, may revoke probation except as
provided in subsection (7), reduce or enlarge the conditions
of a sentence of probation, pursuant to the provisions
applicable to the initial setting of the conditions and the
provisions of section 706-627.
. . . .

(4) The court may modify the requirements imposed on
the defendant or impose further requirements, if it finds
that such action will assist the defendant in leading a
law-abiding life.

HRS § 706-627 provides:
§ 706-627 Tolling of probation. (1) Upon the filing
of a motion to revoke a probation or a motion to enlarge the
conditions imposed thereby, the period of probation shall be
tolled pending the hearing upon the motion and the decision
of the court. The period of tolling shall be computed from
the filing date of the motion through and including the
filing date of the written decision of the court concerning
the motion for purposes of computation of the remaining
period of probation, if any. In the event the court fails
to file a written decision upon the motion, the period shall
be computed by reference to the date the court makes a
decision upon the motion in open court. During the period
of tolling of the probation, the defendant shall remain
subject to all terms and conditions of the probation except
as otherwise provided by this chapter.

(2) In the event the court, following hearing,
refuses to revoke the probation or grant the requested
enlargement of conditions thereof because the defendant's
failure to comply therewith was excusable, the defendant may

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

be granted the period of tolling of the probation for
purposes of computation of the remaining probation, if any.

This court recently rejected this argument in State v.

Wilbur-Delima, CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2024 WL 3563240, *1 (Haw. App.

July 29, 2024). Based on the reasoning set forth in Wilbur-

Delima, we reiterate that a motion to modify probation that seeks

to enlarge a condition of probation is a tolling motion.

Like the appellant in Wilbur-Delima, Holland-Dornath

had entered the HOPE Probation Program. Although the subject

motions to modify Holland-Dornath's probation were not entitled
as motions to enlarge sentence, in each instance, the State moved

for an enlarged probation condition, i.e., more jail time was

sought; Holland-Dornath stipulated to the violations of one or

more conditions of probation, the motions were granted, and

Holland-Dornath was ordered to serve additional jail time.

Accordingly, the Circuit Court did not err in treating the

State's motions to modify as tolling motions.

Based on the foregoing, and this court's Opinion in

Wilbur-Delima, the Circuit Court's May 5, 2021 Order of
Resentencing and the June 7, 2021 Order re Motion for Revocation

are affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, August 26, 2024.

On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Acting Chief Judge
Phyllis J. Hironaka,
Deputy Public Defender, /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
for Defendant-Appellant. Associate Judge

Donn Fudo, /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Associate Judge
City and County of Honolulu,
for Plaintiff-Appellee.

3