Maddox v. State., SCWC-14-0001108

Background

In 2007 Maddox was indicted on prison-related charges; after delays he moved to dismiss for violation of HRPP Rule 48. The circuit court orally dismissed the indictment without prejudice on May 15, 2009.
Trial counsel had been court-appointed under an order specifying representation "at all stages of proceedings, including appeal, if any." The record contains no motion by trial counsel to withdraw after the oral dismissal.
Two weeks after the oral dismissal Maddox was re‑indicted on identical charges (2009 case). Maddox filed pro se notices of appeal asserting he had orally given notice of appeal after the May 15 hearing.
The Intermediate Court of Appeals dismissed Maddox’s 2009 appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction in August 2009, noting the circuit court had not yet entered a written order of dismissal; the circuit court later entered a written order dismissing without prejudice on January 7, 2010.
Maddox’s post-conviction (HRPP Rule 40) petition alleged (ground G) that trial counsel refused or failed to pursue an appeal after the oral dismissal and effectively abandoned him, depriving him of counsel during a critical stage. The circuit court denied the petition without a hearing; the ICA affirmed.
The Hawai‘i Supreme Court vacated and remanded, holding Maddox alleged colorable claims of ineffective assistance on appeal and abandonment entitling him to an evidentiary Rule 40 hearing.

Issues

Issue	Maddox's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel’s failure to pursue/complete an appeal after the oral dismissal constituted ineffective assistance of counsel	Maddox: counsel told him representation terminated after oral dismissal and did not take steps to effectuate an appeal, causing forfeiture of appellate rights	State: claims were previously litigated or waived; counsel did not err so as to require relief	Court: Allegations, if true, state a colorable ineffective‑assistance claim because counsel had duty to consult and take procedural steps to perfect an appeal; Rule 40 hearing required
Whether counsel’s conduct amounted to abandonment of representation during a critical stage	Maddox: counsel effectively abandoned him (no motion to withdraw, pro se filings followed, counsel said he could not represent on appeal)	State: trial court found Maddox was represented throughout; no formal withdrawal means no abandonment	Court: If counsel wholly abandoned duties during a critical stage without court‑approved withdrawal, prejudice is presumed and abandonment claim is colorable; Rule 40 hearing required
Whether prejudice must be shown to obtain relief for lost appeal	Maddox: prejudice is inherent where appeal was lost because of counsel’s omission/abandonment	State: relief unnecessary because prior proceedings addressed issues or claims were waived	Court: When appeal is denied because counsel failed to take necessary steps or abandoned client, no separate showing of actual prejudice is required; possible impairment/presumed prejudice suffices
Whether an oral notice of appeal or pro se filings cured counsel’s failure	Maddox: he filed pro se notices of appeal and sought counsel, but the ICA dismissed for lack of an entered written order and no timely notice after written order entry	State: pro se filings were insufficient or procedural default applies	Court: With counsel’s assistance the timing and procedural preservation might have been different; absence of counsel’s action led to forfeiture—thus pro se filings did not override counsel’s duty or remove the need for relief

Key Cases Cited

State v. Antone, 615 P.2d 101 (Haw. 1980) (sets Hawai‘i standard for ineffective assistance: specific errors and resulting impairment of a meritorious defense)
Dan v. State, 879 P.2d 528 (Haw. 1994) (standard for reviewing denial of Rule 40 petition without a hearing; whether colorable claim was alleged)
State v. Erwin, 554 P.2d 236 (Haw. 1976) (appointed counsel may not forgo procedural rules and thereby deprive an indigent defendant of his appeal)
Maples v. Thomas, 565 U.S. 266 (2012) (attorney abandonment is functionally equivalent to having no counsel and may justify relief)
Roe v. Flores‑Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000) (failure of counsel to consult regarding appeal or to file a requested appeal can be professionally unreasonable)
State v. Nicol, 403 P.3d 259 (Haw. 2017) (an appealable criminal order is determined by finality of the decision, not solely by imposition of sentence)
In re Attorney’s Fees of Mohr, 32 P.3d 647 (Haw. 2001) (appointed counsel must remain an advocate and not abandon prosecution of an appeal)