State v. Arroyo, CAAP-19-0000122

Defendant Rafael Arroyo was convicted by jury of two counts of first-degree burglary for entries on May 29, 2015 (Count Three) and May 31, 2015 (Count One).
Trial evidence included a socket wrench found near Arroyo when arrested in the complaining witness's (CW) bed on May 31; CW testified the wrench was not hers and two days earlier Arroyo had forced entry and assaulted her.
On July 26, 2018 the circuit court sentenced Arroyo to 10 years on Count One and 7.5 years on Count Three to run consecutively; the court later concluded the 7.5-year term was illegal under HRS §706-660 and vacated the sentence sua sponte, then reinstated and amended the judgment to impose the mandatory 10-year term on Count Three (Amended Judgment Feb. 5, 2019).
Arroyo appealed, arguing (1) the court unlawfully reinstated an illegal sentence (null ab initio) and (2) the circuit court abused its discretion by admitting the socket wrench and giving a limiting instruction; the State cross-appealed the court's grant of a motion in limine excluding bad-acts evidence (which the appellate court did not reach).
The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the Amended Judgment, holding the court properly corrected the illegal sentence and properly admitted the socket wrench with a limiting instruction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the circuit court lawfully vacated, reinstated, and corrected an illegal sentence	The State: court has duty under HRPP Rule 35 to correct an illegal sentence and may reinstate/amend the judgment to impose the statutorily mandated term	Arroyo: reinstatement was unlawful and rendered the sentence void ab initio	Affirmed — court properly corrected the illegal 7.5-year term to the mandatory 10-year term; no abuse of discretion and no nullity ab initio (double jeopardy not implicated)
Whether admission of the socket wrench (and the limiting instruction) was improper and unduly prejudicial	The State: socket wrench shows Arroyo was armed and supports an inference he intended to commit a crime against a person (relevant to intent element)	Arroyo: mere proximity of the wrench is insufficient to prove intent and is unfairly prejudicial; should be excluded	Affirmed — evidence was relevant given surrounding circumstances; admission with a limiting instruction was proper and not plain error
Whether the State's cross-appeal (exclusion of bad-acts evidence) warranted reversal	The State: exclusion was legal error	Arroyo: exclusion proper	Not reached by the court; convictions on Counts One and Three affirmed

Bozza v. United States, 330 U.S. 160 (rejecting the doctrine that an error in sentencing requires vacating punishment entirely)
State v. Delmondo, 67 Haw. 531, 696 P.2d 344 (trial court duty to impose mandatory sentence when apparent)
State v. Fry, 61 Haw. 226, 602 P.2d 13 (illegal sentences may be corrected at any time under Rule 35)
State v. Mahoe, [citation="89 Hawai'i 284, 972 P.2d 287"] (intent to commit offense at time of entry is element of burglary)
State v. Calaycay, [citation="145 Hawai'i 186, 449 P.3d 1184"] (intent may be proved by circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences)