State v. Carlton., 455 P.3d 356

Background:

In 2014 Carlton was convicted of kidnapping (A), first-degree robbery, second-degree assault, and unauthorized control of a propelled vehicle (UCPV) and sentenced to concurrent terms totaling 50 years.
The ICA vacated the kidnapping, robbery, and assault convictions for failure to give merger instructions and ordered on remand that the State either retry those counts or dismiss two and have the circuit court reinstate and resentence on the remaining count; Judgment on Appeal entered June 27, 2016.
The State waited until January 11, 2017 to elect dismissal of two counts (but did not disclose which) and proceed with resentencing; Carlton moved to dismiss under HRPP Rule 48(b)(3) on January 17, 2017 for delay.
The circuit court denied Carlton’s motion; at resentencing Carlton allocuted before the State disclosed which charge it would pursue, the State then revealed it would proceed on robbery, and the court did not permit Carlton to speak again before imposing sentence (20 years for robbery, consecutive to a 5-year UCPV term).
The ICA affirmed, holding the six-month clock began when the ICA judgment became effective and that allocution was waived for failure to object; Carlton appealed to the Hawai‘i Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held HRPP Rule 48(b)(3) applies to remands where the State may elect retry or resentencing and that the six-month clock begins when the appellate judgment becomes effective; because the State elected within that period, Rule 48 was not violated. However, the Court found a due-process violation: Carlton was denied meaningful allocution because he was not allowed to speak after being informed which charge would be resentenced, and the case was remanded for resentencing before a different judge.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Carlton)	Held
Does HRPP Rule 48(b)(3) apply when an appellate remand allows the State to elect between a new trial and resentencing?	Rule 48(b)(3) does not apply because a new trial is not required; State can choose resentencing.	Rule 48(b)(3) applies because the ICA’s disposition effectively ordered a new trial unless the State dismissed counts.	Rule 48(b)(3) applies to remands where the State may elect between a new trial and resentencing.
When does the six-month clock under HRPP Rule 48(b)(3) begin to run after an appellate judgment?	Clock begins when the appellate judgment becomes effective under HRAP 36 (i.e., after the certiorari period expires).	Clock begins on the date the ICA judgment is filed/entered.	Clock begins when the appellate court’s judgment becomes effective (not merely filed); here effective date was July 28, 2016.
Was Carlton’s due-process right of allocution violated by allowing him to speak before the State disclosed which counts it would dismiss and then not permitting further allocution after disclosure?	The issue was waived because Carlton did not object at sentencing; knowing the factual basis of the charges was sufficient.	Denial of a chance to allocute after learning the specific charge deprived him of a meaningful opportunity to mitigate, contest facts, and address the exact offense.	The court held the procedure violated due process: Carlton was not afforded a meaningful allocution because he could not address the specific charge after the State’s election; resentencing is required.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Fukuoka, [citation="141 Hawai'i 48, 404 P.3d 314"] (2017) (discussing HRPP Rule 48’s purpose to ensure speedy, efficient resolution of criminal cases)
State v. Estencion, 63 Haw. 264, 625 P.2d 1040 (1981) (stating delay in criminal proceedings subverts public good and justice administration)
State v. Lau, [citation="78 Hawai'i 54, 890 P.2d 291"] (1995) (applying statutory-construction principles to interpret HRPP Rule 48)
State v. Choy Foo, [citation="142 Hawai'i 65, 414 P.3d 117"] (2018) (statutory interpretation principles for court-promulgated rules)
State v. King, [citation="139 Hawai'i 249, 386 P.3d 886"] (2016) (begin interpretation with plain language of rule)
State v. Hernandez, [citation="143 Hawai'i 501, 431 P.3d 1274"] (2018) (recognizing allocution as a due-process right under Hawai'i Constitution)
State v. Carvalho, [citation="90 Hawai'i 280, 978 P.2d 718"] (1999) (allocution must occur before court rules on issues that determine sentencing)
State v. Phua, [citation="135 Hawai'i 504, 353 P.3d 1046"] (2015) (reaffirming meaningful opportunity to be heard and good judicial administration giving defendant the last word)