State v. Hernandez., 431 P.3d 1274

Background

Hernandez was charged in district court with misdemeanor harassment by stalking and submitted a "Rule 43 Plea by Mail" consenting to a no contest plea and waiving presence at plea and sentencing.
The plea form and counsel’s declaration stated Hernandez understood various rights but did not mention the right of allocution (the right to speak before sentencing).
At the January 7, 2015 hearing Hernandez was absent; the court accepted the no contest plea based on the submitted paperwork and counsel’s representations, found him guilty, heard the complainant, and imposed sentence.
Hernandez appealed, arguing the court violated his statutory and constitutional right of allocution and that the plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered because no on-the-record colloquy occurred.
The ICA affirmed, treating Hernandez’s claims as barred by his no contest plea. The Hawai`i Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Hernandez)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether a no contest plea bars challenge to sentencing procedure (allocution)	Plea does not bar challenges to actions occurring after plea acceptance (sentencing); appellate review is proper.	A valid, unwithdrawn no contest plea precludes nonjurisdictional claims; appeal should be dismissed.	Court: Plea does not bar challenge to sentencing because sentencing occurs after plea and no sentencing agreement existed. Appeal not precluded.
Whether failure to personally address defendant prior to sentencing violated right of allocution	Hernandez had a statutory and constitutional right to be heard before sentence; he did not waive allocution knowingly.	HRPP Rule 43 permits in-absentia plea and waives personal address; waiver-by-form and counsel representations suffice.	Court: Statute (HRS §706-604), HRPP Rule 32, and due process guarantee allocution; record shows no knowing waiver—allocution right was violated.
Whether accepting plea without on-the-record colloquy was plain error affecting substantial rights	Court must conduct on-the-record colloquy to ensure plea is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; absence of colloquy is plain error.	Written waiver and counsel declaration satisfied Rule 43; no plain error because defendant initiated in-absentia process.	Court: Trial court erred; constitutional obligation requires colloquy (video appearance may suffice); omission affected substantial rights—plain error.
Remedy	Vacatur unnecessary?	ICA affirmed; State argued pleadings sufficient.	Court: Vacated district court judgment and ICA decision; remanded for further proceedings (including adequate colloquy/resentencing as appropriate).

Key Cases Cited

State v. Morin, 785 P.2d 1316 (Haw. 1990) (guilty/no contest plea ordinarily bars nonjurisdictional pretrial claims)
State v. Dudoit, 978 P.2d 700 (Haw. 1999) (no contest plea does not bar attacks on sentence when no prior sentencing agreement exists)
State v. Davia, 953 P.2d 1347 (Haw. 1998) (allocution is a due process right under Hawai`i Constitution)
State v. Chow, 883 P.2d 663 (Haw. App. 1994) (denial of allocution is error warranting resentencing)
State v. Ui, 418 P.3d 628 (Haw. 2018) (court must engage defendant in on-the-record colloquy before accepting waiver of fundamental rights)
State v. Gomez-Lobato, 312 P.3d 897 (Haw. 2013) (written waiver does not relieve court’s obligation to conduct oral colloquy)
State v. Williams, 720 P.2d 1010 (Haw. 1986) (acceptance of plea without ensuring defendant understood penalties was plain error)
State v. Solomon, 111 P.3d 12 (Haw. 2005) (plea colloquy must inform defendant of rights relinquished)
Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1969) (on-the-record examination recommended to show plea is voluntary)
State v. Vaitogi, 585 P.2d 1259 (Haw. 1978) (affirmative on-the-record colloquy required to show full understanding of plea consequences)