300 P.3d 1022
Haw.2013Background
- Petitioner Lisa Ann Pali was sentenced on 12/29/2005 to five years of probation for Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the Third Degree (HRS 712-1243(1)) and Prohibited Acts Related to Drug Paraphernalia (HRS 329-43.5(a)); probation was granted as a first-time drug offender under HRS 706-622.5.
- The Judgment/Probation Order included standard probation terms and special terms prohibiting alcohol and drug use; after completion, a Certificate of Discharge indicated she had been relieved of obligations and restored to rights.
- On 1/24/2011, after probation ended, Petitioner’s discharge certificate was issued; on 2/8/2011 Respondent filed a Statement of Opposition detailing prior convictions during probation.
- Petitioner moved for expungement under HRS 706-622.5(4); hearings in February–April 2011 included collateral discussion of prior convictions, treatment completion, and whether she complied with other terms and conditions.
- The circuit court denied expungement on 4/21/2011, finding that Petitioner did not meet the statutory requirement because she committed other crimes while on probation; ICA affirmed in 2012; Hawaii Supreme Court vacated and held expungement is granted where the defendant completed treatment and discharge from probation, i.e., complied with other terms and conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ‘complied with other terms and conditions of probation’ requires discharge to satisfy HRS 706-622.5(4). | Pali asserts discharge/completion satisfies ‘complied.’ | Respondent argues both treatment and probation terms must be satisfied; discharge alone is insufficient. | Yes—compliance is satisfied by completion and discharge when the terms are fulfilled. |
| Whether discharge from probation can be used to adjudicate noncompliance after discharge in expungement proceedings. | Pali contends expungement after discharge should not reopen probation violations. | Respondent contends expungement could hinge on post-discharge review of compliance. | Discharge ends court obligations; expungement proceeding may consider compliance context but cannot reopen probation. |
| Whether due process was violated by considering prior convictions at expungement after discharge. | Petitioner argues lack of notice and opportunity to respond regarding prior convictions. | No due process violation; no modification of sentence occurred. | No due process violation; expungement is a separate proceeding with distinct standards. |
| Whether the ICA’s plain-error review of convictions during probation was proper given discharge. | Argues plain-error review improperly relied on evidence not contradicted. | ICA appropriately reviewed, but Supreme Court ultimately construes statutory purpose. | Not necessary to decide for outcome; majority adopts interpretation that discharge equates to compliance. |
| What is the correct statutory interpretation of HRS 706-622.5(4) in light of HRS 706-630 and 706-625? | Argues plain language supports expungement upon completion and discharge. | Argues need to consider probation revocation/ modification framework. | Propers interpretation requires treating discharge as satisfaction of probation terms for expungement. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Vilorta, 70 Haw. 58 (1988) (probation discharge ends court obligations; limited exceptions apply)
- Asuncion, 120 Haw. 312 (App. 2009) (probation completion ends jurisdiction to modify terms; expungement proceedings distinct)
- State v. Tierney, 127 Haw. 157 (2012) (shall as mandatory language; interpret statutory terms)
- State v. Wheeler, 121 Haw. 383 (2009) (plain language interpretation; ascertain legislative intent from text)
- State v. Kikuta, 125 Haw. 78 (2011) (pari materia; use related probation statutes to interpret terms)