State v. Choy Foo., 414 P.3d 117

Background

State charged Quincy L.F. Choy Foo, III with fourth-degree sexual assault in district court; at initial appearance (Mar 15, 2012) he appeared without counsel and the court set a waiver/demand-of-jury-trial hearing three weeks later (Apr 5, 2012).
The waiver/demand hearing was continued several times; Choy Foo finally demanded a jury on May 30, 2012 and was arraigned in circuit court on June 12, 2012.
Trial settings proceeded with several continuances and congestion; the State later acknowledged an HRPP Rule 48 six-month deadline would be March 3, 2013; Choy Foo moved to dismiss on March 11, 2013 asserting 189 includable days had elapsed.
The sole disputed period was the 21 days between arraignment (Mar 15, 2012) and the first waiver/demand hearing (Apr 5, 2012); district court practice routinely sets a three-week continuance for such hearings and includes that time in Rule 48 calculations.
The circuit court dismissed with prejudice for Rule 48 violation; the ICA reversed, holding the 21-day period excludable under HRPP 48(c)(1) and (c)(8) (protecting right to counsel), and remanded for Estencion-factor analysis.
Hawai‘i Supreme Court granted certiorari and held the 21-day period is not excludable under HRPP 48(c)(1) or (c)(8); it vacated the dismissal-with-prejudice and remanded for the circuit court to apply Estencion factors to decide dismissal with or without prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Choy Foo)	Held
Whether the 21-day continuance between arraignment and district-court waiver/demand hearing is excludable under HRPP 48(c)(1) as a "collateral or other proceeding concerning the defendant"	The delay was for defendant’s benefit (to secure counsel) and is analogous to delays for withdrawal/appointment of counsel, thus excludable	The routine docket practice is not a proceeding concerning the particular defendant; initial lack of counsel differs from withdrawal of counsel and is not an excludable motion-driven delay	Not excludable under HRPP 48(c)(1): Rule text and structure limit (c)(1)/(d) exclusions to motion-initiated proceedings and identified examples; routine continuance is court calendar practice and is included in the Rule 48 computation
Whether the 21-day continuance is excludable under HRPP 48(c)(8) as "other periods of delay for good cause"	The delay is unforeseeable for a given defendant and required to secure counsel, so it qualifies as good cause	The three-week continuance is foreseeable/common practice; many defendants appear unrepresented and the delay is not unanticipated	Not excludable under HRPP 48(c)(8): good-cause exclusion requires unanticipated, not reasonably foreseeable events; appearance without counsel here was foreseeable and thus not "good cause"
Whether the ICA erred insofar as it reversed dismissal rather than remanding for Estencion-factor analysis	ICA should not have reversed dismissal without Estencion analysis; if exclusion applies, remand required to decide prejudice	Choy Foo conceded Estencion factors must be considered when dismissing with prejudice	Court agrees: the circuit court did not apply Estencion factors; remand required to determine whether dismissal should be with or without prejudice
Whether prior ICA and memorandum opinions treating lack of counsel as broadly excludable remain valid	State relied on some precedent (including unpublished Canencia) treating nonrepresentation periods as excludable	Choy Foo urged those authorities are inapposite or nonbinding	Hawaii Supreme Court overrules broad principle from Canencia (unpublished) to the extent it held any period without counsel is excludable; Rule 48 text controls

Key Cases Cited

State v. Senteno, 69 Haw. 363, 742 P.2d 369 (discusses excludability where trial cannot proceed without counsel)
State v. Samonte, 83 Hawai‘i 507, 928 P.2d 1 (interpreting Rule 48 exclusions and motion-related delays)
State v. Estencion, 63 Haw. 264, 625 P.2d 1040 (factors trial court must weigh in dismissing with or without prejudice)
State v. Hoey, 77 Hawai‘i 17, 881 P.2d 504 (Rule 48 purpose: speedy trial and docket management; time must actually delay trial to be excludable)
State v. Abregano, 136 Hawai‘i 489, 363 P.3d 838 (good-cause analysis under HRPP 48(c)(8): unanticipated and not reasonably foreseeable events)
State v. Fukuoka, 141 Hawai‘i 48, 404 P.3d 314 (recent guidance on Estencion principles and trial-court exercise of discretion)
State v. Jing Hua Xiao, 123 Hawai‘i 251, 231 P.3d 968 (rule of lenity and strict construction principles applied to ambiguous criminal procedure rules)