Lindsey v. State
149 Haw. 338
Haw.2021Background
- Petitioner Jerrico Lindsey, convicted of second-degree murder in 2009, filed an HRPP Rule 40 post-conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel but included no factual allegations, stating he intended to amend after appointment of counsel.
- Lindsey concurrently moved for appointment of counsel; the State answered about seven months later arguing the petition lacked factual support.
- On May 3, 2018 the circuit court dismissed the Rule 40 petition as "patently frivolous" and denied appointment of counsel.
- Lindsey, unaware of the dismissal, delivered a motion to withdraw the petition (so he could amend it) to prison officials on May 4, 2018; the circuit court denied that motion on July 30, 2018.
- The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the motion to withdraw; Lindsey petitioned the Hawai‘i Supreme Court.
- The Hawai‘i Supreme Court held the circuit court erred by dismissing the petition without first giving Lindsey an opportunity to clarify his claims, construed his withdrawal motion as a motion for reconsideration, vacated the ICA and circuit court orders, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a petitioner may withdraw/amend a Rule 40 petition filed without factual detail after the court has dismissed it | Lindsey: Rule 40(e) allows amendment/withdrawal and amendment shall be freely allowed; he sought withdrawal to amend after counsel appointment | State: Withdrawal is discretionary; motion filed after dismissal is moot and petition lacked factual basis | Held: Generally a post-dismissal withdrawal is moot, but here the motion should have been read as a motion for reconsideration and the court erred by dismissing without allowing clarification |
| Whether dismissal for lack of particularity may occur without first giving petitioner an opportunity to clarify | Lindsey: Rule 40(e) expressly requires giving opportunity to clarify before dismissal | State: Petition was devoid of facts and had long opportunity to amend; dismissal proper | Held: Rule 40(e) requires an opportunity to clarify; the court dismissed prematurely and should have allowed clarification |
| Whether pro se filings should be liberally construed (motion to withdraw as motion for reconsideration) | Lindsey: His petition and motion showed intent to amend after counsel appointment; timing supports construing as reconsideration | State: Focused on timing and lack of facts; asserted no authority to allow withdrawal of a petition devoid of factual allegations | Held: Pro se filings are to be liberally construed; under the circumstances the withdrawal motion reasonably sought reconsideration and should have been treated as such |
Key Cases Cited
- Dan v. State, [citation="76 Hawai'i 423, 879 P.2d 528"] (1994) (establishing that a Rule 40 hearing is required where the petition states a colorable claim)
- State v. Allen, 7 Haw. App. 89, 744 P.2d 789 (1987) (definition of a colorable claim for post-conviction relief)
- Setala v. J.C. Penney Co., [citation="97 Hawai'i 484, 40 P.3d 886"] (2002) (prison mailbox rule for filing dates)
- Fagaragan v. State, [citation="132 Hawai'i 224, 320 P.3d 889"] (2014) (HRPP Rule 40(e) requires opportunity to clarify unclear petitions before dismissal)
- Dupree v. Hiraga, [citation="121 Hawai'i 297, 219 P.3d 1084"] (2009) (pro se filings are to be liberally construed)
- Civil Beat L. Ctr. for the Pub. Int., Inc. v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, [citation="144 Hawai'i 466, 445 P.3d 47"] (2019) (discussion of mootness and lack of live controversy)
- United States v. Fiorelli, 337 F.3d 282 (3d Cir. 2003) (tolling filing deadlines for prison-caused delays in notice)
- United States v. Grana, 864 F.2d 312 (3d Cir. 1989) (exclusion of prison notice delay when computing appeal timeliness)