CourtListener 10759325

Texto completo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
16-DEC-2025
08:01 AM
Dkt. 84 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
KENNETH EDWARD TEXEIRA, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 3DTC-21-026478)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, Leonard and McCullen, JJ.)

This appeal raises 15 points of error (POEs),
purportedly challenging rulings on pre-trial motions and a
discovery issue, issues regarding the defendant's change of
plea, and motion to withdraw the plea, stemming from an
underlying case where defendant pled no contest without a
conditional plea.1 We affirm.

1 "A conditional plea is an exception to the general rule
precluding nonjurisdictional appeals after a guilty or a no contest plea[.]"
State v. Kealaiki, 95 Hawaiʻi 309, 314, 22 P.3d 588, 593 (2001). Hawaiʻi
Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 11(a)(2) provides for conditional pleas,
as follows: "With the approval of the court and the consent of the State, a
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Defendant-Appellant Kenneth Edward Texeira (Texeira)
appeals from the April 26, 2023 "Judgment and Notice of Entry of
Judgment" (Judgment) entered by the District Court of the Third
Circuit (District Court).2
On April 26, 2023, Texeira pled no contest to
Excessive Speeding under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 291C-
105(a) pursuant to a plea agreement, under which Texeira was
sentenced to a fine, community service, and a 30-day license
suspension, in exchange for Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawaiʻi
(State) pursuing only the statutorily required minimum fine and
dropping its second Excessive Speeding charge under HRS § 291C-
105(b), consistent with the plea agreement.
On appeal, Texeira contends the District Court erred
by: (1) "allow[ing]" the custodian of records of the Hawaiʻi
County Police Department "to proceed" on an "improperly filed
civil motion to quash"; (2) denying Texeira's motion to dismiss,
where the State "fail[ed] to file and serve a complaint,"
"failed to provide [Texeira] with a copy of a citation," and
"failed to orally read the . . . charges"; (3) denying Texeira's
motion to dismiss, where the State "fail[ed] to allege mens
rea"; (4) denying Texeira's motion to stay proceedings to allow
Texeira to file an interlocutory appeal; (5) denying Texeira's
motion to dismiss, where the State "orally arraign[ed] [Texeira]
for the first time at trial"; (6) denying Texeira's motion to

defendant may enter a conditional plea . . . of nolo contendere [(no
contest)], reserving in writing the right, on appeal from the judgment, to
seek review of the adverse determination of any specified pretrial motion."
Id. (quoting HRPP Rule 11(a)(2)) (emphasis omitted). The right to appellate
review following a no contest plea is preserved only for "specified" pretrial
motions, and must be reserved in writing. See id. This was not done in this
case.
2 The Honorable Jill M. Hasegawa presided.

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

dismiss, where Texeira was charged for violations under both HRS
§ 291C-105(a)(1) and (a)(2), despite the "statute specifically
stat[ing] that the [State] may only charge one or the other
charge"; (7) denying Texeira's motion to dismiss, where the
"citation stat[ed] [a] violation based on 81+ miles [and] the
[State] charged 80+"; (8) accepting Texeira's change of plea
"knowing that his change of plea was not intelligent, knowing or
voluntary";3 (9) allowing trial to proceed despite "being
informed that the [State] did not want to turn over discovery";
(10) informing Texeira that "he had no right to appeal";
(11) informing Texeira "of the counts against him when there
were no charges against him"; (12) "ma[king] erroneous findings
of fact and conclusions of law against [Texeira]"; (13) not
following HRPP Rule 11; (14) "schedul[ing] the motion to
withdraw the change of plea in front of the judge who sentenced
[Texeira]"; and (15) "continu[ing] [to] review . . . the case
after the change of plea and sentenc[ing]" despite "Judge
Hasegawa [becoming] an alleged witness."
Texeira's Opening Brief does not comply with Hawaiʻi
Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28 in a number of
respects. The brief does not comply with the format required by
Rule 28. The pertinent history and facts are difficult to
ascertain due to the argumentative tone and conclusory
assertions that permeate the entire brief. Record references
are inconsistently provided, and when provided are often
insufficient, lacking a docket number or electronic page
numbers. See HRAP Rule 28(b)(3), (b)(4), and (b)(7) (requiring

3 Texeira's claim that his change of plea was defective is not
ripe. Texeira challenged the validity of the April 26, 2023 change of plea
after the hearing, by filing a motion to withdraw plea on May 6, 2023. Due
to the filing of this appeal, the District Court did not rule on the motion,
and it remains pending.

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

record references that "include a description of the document
referenced, the JIMS or JEFS docket number and electronic page
citations"). Not all the POEs comply with HRAP Rule
28(b)(4)(iii), showing how the alleged error was preserved, by
objection or indicating how it was brought to the District
Court's attention. The argument does not correspond to the
POEs, and for some POEs no argument is presented. See HRAP Rule
28(b)(7) (requiring argument "on the points presented" and
providing "[p]oints not argued are deemed waived"). Such
noncompliance with HRAP Rule 28 impedes expeditious appellate
review.
In response to Texeira's 15 POEs raised on appeal, the
State argues that Texeira failed to preserve the POEs because he
"entered a non-conditional plea, and therefore has not properly
preserved any issues relating to nonjurisdictional defects in
the proceedings." This argument has merit.
"Generally, a guilty plea made voluntarily and
intelligently precludes a defendant from later asserting any
nonjurisdictional claims, including constitutional challenges to
the pretrial proceedings." State v. Morin, 71 Haw. 159, 162,
785 P.2d 1316, 1318 (1990) (citations omitted). "A plea of nolo
contendere is equivalent to a plea of guilty in terms of waiving
alleged nonjurisdictional defects." Id. (citations omitted).

Although the defendant may still challenge the sufficiency
of the indictment or other like defects bearing directly
upon the government's authority to compel the defendant to
answer to charges in court, claims of nonjurisdictional
defects in the proceeding, such as unlawfully obtained
evidence and illegal detention, will generally not survive
the plea.

Id. (citation omitted). Without a conditional plea under HRPP
Rule 11(a)(2), a defendant must plead not guilty and go to trial

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

to preserve the right to appeal nonjurisdictional issues. See
id.

A criminal trial fully activates a defendant's right to
confront accusers, testify, or not testify, present a
complete defense, and have the prosecution prove each
element of the charged or included offenses beyond a
reasonable doubt. . . . By pleading guilty or no contest,
defendants renounce these core constitutional rights, forgo
a public trial, and subject themselves to the government's
punitive power.

State v. Pedro, 149 Hawaiʻi 256, 271, 488 P.3d 1235, 1250 (2021).
Here, because Texeira did not enter a conditional plea
and did not go to trial and instead pled no contest, Texeira
waived the right to challenge any alleged nonjurisdictional
defects on appeal. None of the 15 POEs expressly challenge
jurisdiction, but we address what appears to be a jurisdictional
argument on pages 26-29 of the Opening Brief, that: "there was
no jurisdiction on the basis that there was no charging
instrument"; and "the district court plainly erred in accepting
his no contest plea and by sentencing him when there was no
charging instrument."
Texeira's jurisdictional argument
It appears that Texeira is claiming that the citation
did not exist, and Texeira never received it, as follows:
"[n]either the [State] nor [Texeira] made any allegation of fact
that an alleged citation that [Texeira] allegedly received, when
he was allegedly ticketed, contained a count 1, 2 or 3"; Texeira
"maintains that he did not receive any such type of citation";
and Texeira "was not served with any complaint." Texeira claims
"[t]he defect in this case, that there was no charge, means that
there was no jurisdiction." While Texeira's argument is
difficult to discern, Texeira appears to disagree that HRS

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

§ 803-6 "provides a basis for a police officer to charge a
traffic crime."
HRS § 803-6(b) (2014) provides "[i]n any case in which
it is lawful for a police offer to arrest a person without a
warrant for a misdemeanor, petty misdemeanor or violation, the
police officer may, but need not, issue a citation in lieu of
[arrest under HRS § 803-6](a)[.]"
Here, the record reflects an August 6, 2021 Excessive
Speeding citation against Texeira issued by a Hawaiʻi County
Police Department officer. A violation of HRS § 291C-105 is a
petty misdemeanor. The citation was signed by the complainant
police officer; signed by Texeira acknowledging his agreement to
appear before the district court on September 7, 2021; and
otherwise complied with the requirements of HRS § 803-6. The
record reflects Texeira appeared before the district court on
September 7, 2021. The only pertinent authority that Texeira
cites to support his jurisdictional argument is a quote from
Schwartz v. State, 136 Hawaiʻi 258, 264, 361 P.3d 1161, 1167
(2015), that "jurisdiction of the district court is invoked by
the charging instrument." The record in this case contains a
charging instrument. Texeira's argument lacks merit.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the April 26,
2023 Judgment of the District Court.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, December 16, 2025.
On the briefs:
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Jamae K. K. Kawauchi, Chief Judge
for Defendant-Appellant.
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Stephen L. Frye, Associate Judge
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
for Plaintiff-Appellee. /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Associate Judge