State v. Krstoth., 138 Haw. 268

Background

Takson Krstoth, a 22‑year‑old with a 10th‑grade education and limited English, pleaded guilty to second‑degree murder pursuant to a plea agreement; sentencing was set for July 23, 2013.
After the plea, Krstoth sent an ex parte handwritten letter (prepared by another) saying he felt scared and pressured by his attorney to accept the plea and asking to withdraw it.
New counsel was appointed; Krstoth later filed a pre‑sentence HRPP Rule 32(d) Motion to Withdraw Plea asserting he did not understand the plea, the Chuukese interpreter sometimes only told him to “say yes” or “say no,” and he was pressured by counsel and the interpreter.
The circuit court held an evidentiary hearing, found Krstoth’s testimony contradictory and credited the attorney and interpreter, denied the motion, and accepted the plea, sentencing Krstoth to life with parole eligibility per the plea agreement.
The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) affirmed. The Hawai‘i Supreme Court granted certiorari and reviewed whether the record establishes a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent plea and whether the circuit court abused its discretion in denying withdrawal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Krstoth)	Held
Whether the circuit court abused its discretion denying pre‑sentence motion to withdraw plea	The record (change‑of‑plea colloquy, plea form) shows Krstoth understood rights and voluntarily pleaded; no fair and just reason to withdraw	Plea was not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary due to language barrier, deficient colloquy, and pressure from counsel/interpreter	Court held circuit court abused discretion; plea record did not establish a knowing, intelligent, voluntary waiver; vacated and remanded
Whether the change‑of‑plea colloquy sufficiently established waiver of jury trial and other constitutional rights	Colloquy and defendant’s statements show waiver of rights and satisfaction with counsel	Colloquy was deficient given limited English, one‑word answers, and incomplete explanation of jury trial and other rights	Court held colloquy was constitutionally insufficient to establish valid waiver of jury trial and other rights
Whether the court’s explanation of parole/minimum term was adequate	The plea explicitly set a 15‑year minimum to parole eligibility as part of the agreement	Court misinformed defendant by implying the sentencing court — not the Paroling Authority — controlled parole minimum	Court held colloquy failed to explain parole decisionmaker; this was a deficiency undermining the plea’s validity
Whether defendant presented "fair and just" reasons to withdraw before sentencing	State did not claim substantial prejudice from withdrawal and argued no fair/just reason shown	Deficiency in colloquy and language barrier are fair and just reasons warranting withdrawal	Court held fair and just reasons existed and that the State did not show substantial prejudice; withdrawal should have been permitted

Key Cases Cited

State v. Jim, 58 Haw. 574, 574 P.2d 521 (Court establishes liberal pre‑sentence withdrawal standard)
State v. Phua, [citation="135 Hawai'i 504, 353 P.3d 1046"] (language barrier is salient fact requiring careful colloquy)
State v. Gomez‑Lobato, [citation="130 Hawai'i 465, 312 P.3d 897"] (totality of circumstances for jury‑waiver validity)
State v. Solomon, [citation="107 Hawai'i 117, 111 P.3d 12"] (trial court must affirmatively show plea is voluntary and waiver of rights is valid)
State v. Vaitogi, 59 Haw. 592, 585 P.2d 1259 (plain error to accept plea without affirmative on‑the‑record showing)
State v. Merino, [citation="81 Hawai'i 198, 915 P.2d 672"] (standard of review for denial of Rule 32(d) motion)
State v. Gomes, [citation="79 Hawai'i 32, 897 P.2d 959"] (bases for showing fair and just reasons to withdraw plea)
Duarte‑Higareda v. United States, 113 F.3d 1000 (Ninth Circuit model colloquy elements for jury‑waiver advisement)
State v. Friedman, [citation="93 Hawai'i 63, 996 P.2d 268"] (court not required to recite full Duarte‑Higareda colloquy in every case)