State v. Kong.
140 Haw. 103
| Haw. | 2017Background
- In April 2011 Stanley S.L. Kong was sentenced to consecutive terms (10 years + 5 years) for drug offenses; the court cited Kong’s "extensive criminality" based on his PSI.
- Two felony convictions listed in the PSI had previously been vacated, remanded, and ultimately dismissed; defense counsel did not object at the original sentencing.
- On direct appeal Kong challenged (1) the sufficiency of the district court’s articulation for consecutive sentences and (2) reliance on the PSI entries for the vacated convictions; the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court affirmed (Kong I).
- Three days after Kong I, Kong filed an HRPP Rule 35(b) motion seeking resentencing to concurrent terms and raised a Sinagoga challenge to the PSI entries; the circuit court denied the motion, partly stating it would defer because the sentence had been affirmed on appeal.
- The ICA affirmed the denial, holding Sinagoga did not apply to Rule 35 proceedings; on certiorari the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court vacated the ICA judgment and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Sinagoga challenge to PSI prior convictions may be raised in a Rule 35(b) motion | Kong: Rule 35(b) may be used to raise a good-faith Sinagoga challenge to incorrect PSI entries and seek resentencing | State: Kong's challenge was foreclosed by direct appeal and Sinagoga does not apply in Rule 35 proceedings | Held: A Sinagoga challenge may be raised in a Rule 35(b) motion; Kido and the purposes of HRPP support allowing it |
| Whether the circuit court abused discretion by refusing to re-evaluate sentence because appellate court affirmed on direct appeal | Kong: The court improperly abdicated its independent Rule 35(b) discretion and misunderstood the effect of Kong I | State: The sentence was already reviewed on appeal; no grounds to reconsider | Held: Circuit court erred in treating Kong I as preclusive; it may re-evaluate under Rule 35 when cogent reasons exist (e.g., erroneous PSI entries) |
| Whether the circuit court properly applied the Sinagoga framework when Kong raised a challenge in Rule 35 proceedings | Kong: The circuit court and State failed to follow Sinagoga steps after Kong timely challenged the PSI entries | State: Circuit court did not rely on vacated convictions and therefore no Sinagoga violation | Held: Circuit court erred by abandoning the Sinagoga challenge and failing to address whether the prior convictions were invalid under the framework |
| Whether affirmance on direct appeal (plain-error standard) precludes Rule 35 reconsideration (lower standard) | Kong: Affirmance on direct appeal does not bar a Rule 35 re-evaluation under a different, more permissive standard | State: Appellate affirmation indicates no basis to change sentence | Held: Affirmance under plain-error review does not preclude a Rule 35 court from exercising its discretionary authority to reconsider the sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sinagoga, 81 Hawaiʻi 421, 918 P.2d 228 (1996) (sets five-step framework for challenging prior convictions in PSI)
- State v. Kido, 109 Hawaiʻi 458, 128 P.3d 340 (2006) (Rule 35 relief appropriate where sentence relied on a conviction later vacated)
- State v. Veikoso, 102 Hawaiʻi 219, 74 P.3d 575 (2003) (modification of Sinagoga framework)
- State v. Hussein, 122 Hawaiʻi 495, 229 P.3d 313 (2010) (requirements for articulating reasons when imposing consecutive sentences)
- State v. Kong, 131 Hawaiʻi 94, 315 P.3d 720 (2013) (Kong I) (affirmed original sentence on direct appeal under plain-error review)