Schwartz v. State., 361 P.3d 1161

In 2008 Sandra Schwartz pleaded guilty in district court to OVUII (HRS § 291E-61(a)) based on a complaint that omitted the statutory "public way, street, road, or highway" element. She did not appeal the conviction.
In 2009 this court decided State v. Wheeler, holding that operation on a public road is an element of OVUII and must be alleged in the charging instrument.
Relying on Wheeler, Schwartz filed an HRPP Rule 40 petition arguing the complaint’s omission deprived the district court of subject-matter jurisdiction and thus her conviction was void; the district court and ICA denied relief.
The State argued Schwartz waived any challenge by failing to appeal, that Wheeler should not apply retroactively to final convictions, and that the complaint could be reasonably construed to charge OVUII.
The Hawai‘i Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide (1) whether omission of an element in the charge is a jurisdictional defect, (2) Wheeler’s retroactivity, and (3) whether a Wheeler defect (if jurisdictional) can be applied retroactively on collateral review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Schwartz)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether omission of an element in the charging instrument (public-road for OVUII) deprives the trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction	Omission of an essential element is jurisdictional and thus the conviction is void	A defective charge is a non-jurisdictional due-process/trial error; jurisdiction is statutorily conferred and invoked by a cognizable charge	Omission of an element is non-jurisdictional; district court had subject-matter jurisdiction under HRS Ch. 604
Whether Wheeler announced a new rule and thus whether it applies retroactively to final convictions	Wheeler announced a substantive rule that should apply to deficient charges	Wheeler was statutory interpretation applying settled constitutional principles; it did not create a new rule	Wheeler did not announce a new rule; it interpreted existing requirements that elements must be alleged, so retroactivity analysis is inapplicable
Whether a collateral challenge based on a non-jurisdictional defect survives a guilty plea	The plea cannot waive a jurisdictional defect; conviction is void if jurisdiction was lacking	A voluntary, intelligent guilty plea bars later non-jurisdictional claims (Morin)	Because the defect is non-jurisdictional, Schwartz’s guilty plea precludes collateral relief; Rule 40 denial affirmed

State v. Wheeler, [citation="121 Hawai'i 383, 219 P.3d 1170"] (Haw. 2009) (held that operation on a public way is an element of OVUII and must be alleged)
United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (U.S. 2002) (omission of an element from an indictment does not necessarily deprive a court of subject-matter jurisdiction)
State v. Davis, [citation="133 Hawai'i 102, 324 P.3d 912"] (Haw. 2014) (treats defective charge omitting mens rea as trial error and requires appellate sufficiency review before remand)
State v. Jendrusch, 58 Haw. 279, 567 P.2d 1242 (Haw. 1977) (defective charge that omits an element is a due-process/notice problem, not framed as jurisdictional)
State v. Walker, [citation="126 Hawai'i 475, 273 P.3d 1161"] (Haw. 2012) (post-Wheeler decision discussing interaction of earlier OVUII precedents and Wheeler)