State v. Doo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
30-JAN-2026
08:08 AM
Dkt. 72 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

STATE OF HAWAI I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
OWEN D. DOO, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CR. NO. 1PC051001262)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and McCullen, JJ.)
Defendant-Appellant Owen Doo (Doo) appeals from the

December 9, 2024 Order to Transfer Pleadings to be Processed as a

Post-Conviction Proceeding Under Rule 40 of the Hawai i Rules of

Penal Procedure1 [(HRPP)] (Order to Transfer) entered by the

1
HRPP Rule 40(a)(2) & (c)(2) provide in pertinent part:

(a) Proceedings and Grounds. The post-conviction
proceeding established by this rule shall encompass all
common law and statutory procedures for the same purpose,
including habeas corpus and coram nobis; provided that the
foregoing shall not be construed to limit the availability
of remedies in the trial court or on direct appeal. Said
proceeding shall be applicable to judgments of conviction
and to custody based on judgments of conviction, as follows:

. . . .

(2) From Custody. Any person may seek relief under
the procedure set forth in this rule from custody based upon
a judgment of conviction, on the following grounds:
(i) that the sentence was fully served;
(ii) that parole or probation was unlawfully revoked;
or
(iii) any other ground making the custody, though not
the judgment, illegal.

(continued...)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court) in

1PC051001262 (the 2005 Case).2

Doo raises a single point of error on appeal,

contending that the Circuit Court erred "when it treated Doo's

Motion to Correct Sentence and Restore the Maximum Term of

Imprisonment as a nonconforming HRPP Rule 40 petition for post-

conviction relief, removed the file from [the 2005 Case], and

filed it in the next numbered CPN case."

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, we resolve Doo's

point of error as follows:

In the 2005 Case, Doo was charged with and pleaded

guilty to four drug-related charges. On August 7, 2006, the

Circuit Court sentenced Doo to concurrent terms of probation

with, inter alia, a one-year prison term with credit for time

served as a special condition of probation in three of the

counts. No appeal was filed.

On February 17, 2009, while still on probation in the

2005 Case, Doo was charged with, and two months later pleaded

1
(...continued)
. . . .

(c) Form and Content of Petition.

. . . .

(2) Nonconforming Petition. Where a post-conviction
petition deviates from the form annexed to these rules, it
shall nevertheless be accepted for filing and shall be
treated as a petition under this rule provided that the
petition (i) claims illegality of a judgment or illegality
of "custody" or "restraint" arising out of a judgment[.]
2
The Honorable Ronald G. Johnson presided.

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

guilty to, three new drug-related charges (the 2009 Case). Doo

was ultimately sentenced to concurrent prison terms in the 2009

Case. No appeal was filed.

On May 27, 2009, the State of Hawai i (the State)

filed, inter alia, a Motion for Revocation of Probation and

Resentencing in the 2005 Case, which was granted. On November 7,

2011, in the 2005 Case, the Circuit Court resentenced Doo to

concurrent twenty-year and five-year terms, with his maximum term

expiring January 20, 2032. No appeal was taken from the

resentencing.

On March 18, 2021, Hawai i Paroling Authority (HPA)

released Doo on parole "effective only to immediate admission

into a clean and sober house." Standard terms and conditions of

parole required Doo to, inter alia, "keep the parole

officer/parole supervisor informed as to your whereabouts."

Special terms and conditions required Doo to, inter alia, "remain

in clean and sober house/structured living program for a period

of six months of your release from prison." HPA's Order of

Parole stated, inter alia, that failure to abide by the terms and

conditions would result in suspension of parole. Doo signed and

accepted HPA's terms and conditions.

On March 25, 2021, HPA issued a Warrant of Arrest for

Doo, alleging that Doo: (1) was in possession of methamphetamine

on March 19, 2021; (2) failed to remain in clean and sober

housing for the required six months; and (3) failed to inform his

parole officer of his whereabouts.

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

Doo was arrested on June 25, 2024. HPA held a

revocation hearing on August 7, 2024, at which Doo "pleaded

guilty" to the violations. HPA ordered Doo's parole "revoked for

the balance of maximum sentence" and ruled that due to parole

suspension from March 25, 2021, to June 25, 2024, Doo's new

maximum sentence would expire on April 22, 2035.

On September 18, 2024, in the 2005 Case, Doo filed a

Motion to Correct Sentence and Restore the Maximum Term of

Imprisonment (Motion to Correct), pursuant to, inter alia, HRPP

Rule 35.

On December 9, 2024, in the 2005 Case, the Circuit

Court entered the Order to Transfer, concluding in relevant part:
Defendant's Petition filed almost thirteen years after
Defendant's sentence was final, does not seek relief from
the judgment of conviction issued by the Circuit Court of
the First Circuit nor does it challenge Defendant's sentence
to the indeterminate twenty-year term of imprisonment
sentence issued by the court. Instead, Defendant seeks
relief, as outlined in Rule 40(a) of the [HRPP], from
Defendant's "custody based upon a judgment of conviction" on
the ground that his "custody, though not the judgment, [is]
illegal." Haw. R. Penal P. 40(a), (a)(2), and (a)(2)(iii),
Neal v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818, 824 (9th Cir. 1997) ("habeas
corpus is the exclusive remedy for a state prisoner who
challenges the fact or duration of his confinement and seeks
immediate or speedier release"). As such, this court deems
Defendant's Petition to be a Nonconforming Petition for
Post-Conviction Relief pursuant to HRPP Rule 40(c)(2).

The Circuit Court ordered that the Motion to Correct be

removed from the 2005 Case and refiled under the next CPN case

number. On December 12, 2024, Doo timely filed a notice of

appeal from the Order to Transfer.

As a preliminary matter, we address the State's

argument that this court lacks appellate jurisdiction to review

the Order to Transfer, which was entered in the 2005 Case,

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

because it does not end Doo's post-conviction proceedings. This

argument is without merit. The Order to Transfer effectively

denied Doo's request for relief pursuant to HRPP Rule 35 and

terminated the proceedings in the 2005 Case. We conclude that we

have appellate jurisdiction to consider whether the Circuit Court

properly denied relief under HRPP Rule 35. See, e.g., State v.

Kahapea, 111 Hawai i 267, 269, 141 P.3d 440, 442 (2006)

(affirming circuit court's denial of HRPP Rule 35 motion); State

v. Guillermo, 91 Hawai i 307, 308, 983 P.2d 819, 820 (1999)

(vacating circuit court's denial of HRPP Rule 35 motion); State

v. Williams, 70 Haw 566, 567, 777 P.2d 1192, 1193 (1989)

(vacating circuit court's grant of HRPP Rule 35 motion, remanding

for imposition of original sentence).

The sole issue properly before us in this appeal is

whether the Circuit Court erred in construing Doo's Motion to

Correct as an HRPP Rule 40 petition. Doo contends that he is

entitled to relief pursuant to HRPP Rule 35(a), which provides in

relevant part:
(a) Correction of Illegal Sentence. The court may
correct an illegal sentence at any time and may correct a
sentence imposed in an illegal manner within the time
provided herein for the reduction of sentence. A motion
made by a defendant to correct an illegal sentence more than
90 days after the sentence is imposed shall be made pursuant
to Rule 40 of these rules. A motion to correct a sentence
that is made within the 90 day time period shall empower the
court to act on such motion even though the time period has
expired.

(Emphasis added.)

It is undisputed that Doo did not appeal from the

original judgment and sentence in the 2005 Case, which became

final and appealable in 2006, or when he was resentenced by the

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

Circuit Court (in the 2005 Case) in 2011. Citing Hawaii Revised

Statutes (HRS) § 706-670(6), Doo argues in essence that HPA

resentenced him again in the Order of Parole. This argument is

without merit.

HRS § 706-670(6) must be read in context of the entire

statutory provision, including HRS § 706-607(8). See, e.g.,

Williamson v. Haw. Paroling Auth., 97 Hawai i 183, 193, 35 P.3d

210, 220 (2001). HRS § 706-670 provides, in part:
§ 706-670 Parole procedure; release on parole; terms
of parole, recommitment, and reparole; final unconditional
release.
. . . .

(6) Sentence of imprisonment includes separate parole
term. A sentence to an indeterminate term of imprisonment
under this chapter includes as a separate portion of the
sentence a term of parole or of recommitment for violation
of the conditions of parole.

. . . .

(8) Length of recommitment and reparole after
revocation of parole. If a parolee's parole is revoked, the
term of further imprisonment upon such recommitment and of
any subsequent reparole or recommitment under the same
sentence shall be fixed by the authority but shall not
exceed in aggregate length the unserved balance of the
maximum term of imprisonment.

Reading these parts together, it is clear that upon

revocation of parole and recommitment of a parolee, HPA is

required to "fix" – i.e., determine – the term of further

imprisonment. This is not a new sentence – HPA is merely setting

the remaining term of the same sentence, which "shall not exceed

in aggregate length the unserved balance of the maximum term of

imprisonment." Id.

Therefore, we conclude that the Circuit Court did not

err in concluding that Doo was not entitled to relief pursuant to

HRPP Rule 35, and instead, Doo was entitled to challenge HPA's

actions in an HRPP Rule 40 proceeding.

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

For these reasons, the Circuit Court's December 9, 2024

Order to Transfer is affirmed. 3

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, January 30, 2026.

On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Presiding Judge
Sara K. Haley,
Deputy Public Defender, /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
for Defendant-Appellant. Associate Judge

Randall S. Nishiyama, /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Alyssa-Marie Y. Kau, Associate Judge
Deputy Attorneys General,
for Plaintiff-Appellee.

3
This disposition is not intended to comment on or bar any relief
sought by Doo in the HRPP Rule 40 proceedings.

7