State v. SakamotoState v. Sakamoto
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Levinson
Lead Opinion
Opinion by
LEVINSON, J.,with whom Circuit Judge NAKAMURA joins, announcing the judgment of the Court.
In this original proceeding, the petitioner State of Hawai‘i (the prosecution) petitions this court to issue a writ directing the respondent Judge Karl K. Sakamoto (the respondent judge), Judge of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, to vacate his order granting the defendant-respondent Shawn Reilly’s motion for deferred acceptance of no contest (DANC) plea in State v. Reilly, Cr. No. 01-1-0062. The prosecution contends that the respondent judge exceeded his lawful authority and contravened the plain language of Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 853-4(2) (Supp.2002).
Based upon the following, we hold that the respondent judge did not exceed his legal authority when he granted Reilly’s motion for a DANC plea. Accordingly, the prosecution’s petition for a writ directed to a judge is denied.
On May 31, 2000, Reilly argued with Scott Brannan and punched him in the nose, causing a laceration and bone fracture. At first, Brannan informed the police that he did not wish to pursue any charges against Reilly. He later changed his mind, and, on January 10, 2001, the prosecution obtained a grand jury indictment against Reilly charging the offense of assault in the second degree. The indictment alleged:
On or about the 31st day of May, 2000, in the City and County of Honolulu, State of Hawai‘i, SHAWN REILLY did intentionally or knowingly cause substantial bodily injury to Scott Brannan, thereby committing the offense of Assault in the Second Degree, in violation of Section 707-711(l)(a) of the Hawaii Revised Statutes.
On March 4, 2002, Reilly entered a no contest plea to the charge and moved the respondent judge for a DANC plea. In the course of a hearing conducted on May 14, 2002, the prosecution conceded that Reilly had no prior criminal convictions, but argued that the offense was “serious,” being a class C felony, and that, in the interest of justice, deferral of the plea was not warranted. On the same day, the respondent judge entered an order granting the deferred acceptance, having earlier expressed his reasons from the bench as follows:
Mr. Reilly, you do have a solid background of education and employment pursuits. You’re doing real well at Digital Island. I guess you’re contemplating going back to school for further education.
[[Image here]]
The court has had pretrial discussions about this ease and has reviewed the records and also understands that you had another position about what occurred that day. At least at some point the complaining witness was going to drop these charges. There was a disagreement with that [complaining witness, who] filed suit in a civil case.
The court will find that the ends of justice and welfare of society [do] not demand a current imposition of penalties against you and will grant your motion for deferred acceptance of this case.
The period of the deferral will be for two years.
I’ll shorten it because you certainly have a strong future ahead of you and I’m sure with your intelligence will learn from this incident and not be here again in the future.
On June 6, 2002, the prosecution filed a motion for reconsideration of the respondent judge’s May 14, 2002 order, arguing that
The respondent judge denied the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration, stating as follows:
The language [ofHRS § 853-4 ] is very clear in what it seeks to exclude, and there were other opportunities for the legislature to exclude even more, and they have, except they have not excluded on this charge, a substantial bodily injury. So based on that, the motion for reconsideration is denied.
On July 12, 2002, the prosecution filed a second motion for reconsideration on grounds that are not material to the present petition. The respondent judge denied the prosecution’s second motion.
The prosecution subsequently filed the present petition, requesting that this court issue a writ directing that the respondent judge vacate the order granting Reilly’s motion for a DANC plea. The petition resurrects only the issues raised in the prosecution’s first motion for reconsideration.
II. STANDARD FOR DISPOSITION
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action. State v. Hamili, 87 Hawai‘i 102, 104, 952 P.2d 390, 392 (1998) (citing Straub Clinic & Hospital v. Kochi, 81 Hawai‘i 410, 414, 917 P.2d 1284, 1288 (1996)). Such writs are not meant to supersede the legal discretionary authority of the lower court, nor are they meant to serve as legal remedies in lieu of normal appellate procedures. Id. Where the lower court has discretion to act, mandamus will not lie to control the exercise of that discretion, even when the court has acted erroneously, unless the judge has exceeded his or her jurisdiction, has. committed a flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion, or has refused to act on a matter that is properly before the court under circumstances in which it has a legal duty to act. Id. In State v. Oshiro, 69 Haw. 438, 746 P.2d 568 (1987), this court held that
III. DISCUSSION
The sole issue in this proceeding is whether the charged offense with respect to which Reilly entered a no contest plea is excluded from the possibility of deferral by virtue of the provisions of HRS chapter 853 (Supp.2002). When construing a statute, the court’s foremost obligation is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature, which is to be obtained primarily from the language contained in the statute itself. City
HRS chapter 853 governs the circumstances under which a court may defer final adjudication of a criminal case when (1) a defendant voluntarily pleads guilty or no contest prior to the commencement of trial and (2) the court concludes (a) that the defendant is not likely to engage in a criminal course of conduct and (b) that the ends of justice and welfare of society do not require that the defendant presently suffer the penalty imposed by law.
Chapter not applicable; when. This chapter shall not apply when:
[[Image here]]
(2) The offense charged is a felony that involves the intentional, knowing, or reckless bodily injury or serious bodily injury of another person, or is a misdemeanor or petty misdemeanor that carnes a mandatory minimum sentence and that involves the intentional, knowing, or reckless bodily injury or serious bodily injury of another person.
(emphasis added).
In its first motion for reconsideration filed in the circuit court, the prosecution conceded that
In the present original proceeding, the prosecution no longer contends that the statute is ambiguous. Rather, the prosecution urges that the language of the statute is clear and excludes offenses that involve the intentional or knowing infliction of “bodily injury” of any kind. Because the term “bodily injury” is subsumed within “substantial bodily injury,” the prosecution submits that the offense of assault in the second degree, which involves the infliction of “substantial bodily injury,” necessarily encompasses the intentional or knowing causation of “bodily injury.” Consequently, the prosecution contends that a deferred plea is not available with respect to the offense to which Reilly tendered a no contest plea.
The prosecution’s interpretation, which the dissent has substantially adopted, would be viable if the HPC did not define three distinct forms of bodily injury and
Next, the prosecution contends that the literal construction applied by the respondent judge would lead to an absurd result where one defendant could not move for a deferral after entering a plea to a charged felony assault in which he inflicted mere bodily injury, whereas another defendant who inflicted substantial bodily injury could. Because, as the prosecution concedes,, the statute is clear and unambiguous, we are bound by its plain and unambiguous language. As we explained in State v. Dudoit, 90 Hawai‘i 262, 978 P.2d 700 (1999):
We cannot change the language of the statute, supply a want, or enlarge upon it in order to make it suit a certain state of facts. We do not legislate or. make laws. Even when the court is convinced in its own mind that the Legislature really meant and intended something not expressed by the phraseology of the Act, it has no authority to depart from the plain meaning of the language used.
Id. at 271, 978 P.2d at 709 (quoting State v. Meyer, 61 Haw. 74, 77-78, 595 P.2d 288, 291 (1979)). See also
In consideration of the foregoing, the petition for a writ directed to a judge is denied.
Notes
. The legislative history of
In 1980, the legislature amended
In 1993, the legislature amended
(2) The offense charged is a felony which involves the intentional, knowing, or reckless bodily injury or serious bodily injury of another person, or is a misdemeanor or petty misdemeanor which carries a mandatory minimum sentence and which involves the intentional, knowing, or reckless bodily injury or serious bodily injury of another person [.]
1993 Haw. Sess. L. Act 234, § 1 at 414.
At no time did the legislature expressly amend
. The dissent adopts the prosecution’s position, as described above, thereby overlooking tire “cardinal rule of statutory construction that courts are bound to give effect to all parts of a statute and that no clause, sentence, or word shall be construed as superfluous, void or insignificant if a construction can be legitimately found which will give force to and preserve all words of the statute.” State v. Ortiz, 74 Haw. 343, 351-52, 845 P.2d 547, 551-52 (1993) (citations omitted); see also State v. Cummings, 101 Hawai‘i 139, 144-45 n. 4, 63 P.3d 1109, 1114-15 n. 4 (2003); Coon v. City and County of Honolulu, 98 Hawai‘i 233, 259, 47 P.3d 348, 374 (2002). The dissent‘s position renders the phrase “serious bodily injury”, as it appears in
. The dissent agrees with the prosecution’s contention that the respondent judge‘s ruling leads to an absurd result and that the legislature could not have intended such an anomaly. Review of the second degree assault statute in its entirety, however, supports the conclusion that the construction applied by the respondent judge does not lead to an absurd result. Chapter 853 precludes deferrals with respect to the following subsections of
(b) The person recklessly causes serious bodily injury to another person;
(c) The person intentionally or knowingly causes bodily injury to a correctional worker, as defined in section 710-1031(2), who is engaged in the performance of duty or who is within a correctional facility;
(d) The person intentionally or knowingly causes bodily injury to another person with a dangerous instrument; or
(e) The person intentionally or knowingly causes bodily injury to an educational worker who is engaged in the performance of duty or who is within an educational facility....
(emphases added).
All of the instances in which bodily injury, as opposed to substantial bodily injury, results in a felony charge involve either assaults against a particular status of victim, i.e., a correctional or educational worker, or the use of a dangerous instrument. To exclude felony assaults against a particular class of victims or committed with the use of a dangerous instrument from the deferral statute and not exclude the type of charged assault to .which Reilly tendered a no contest plea is by no means absurd.
. Justice Acoba believes that, “[ijnasmuch as the legislature has not prohibited a DANC plea with respect to assault in the second degree[, in violation of HRSJ § 707—711 (1)(a.) (1993), it was within the inherent power of the ... circuit court ... to grant or to deny [Reilly’s] motion ... for a DANC plea.” Concurring opinion at 415, 70 P.3d at 641. We disagree. The realm of deferred acceptance of DAG and DANC pleas, once the foundling of the judiciary, has evolved into the legislature‘s foster child. Indeed, Justice Acoba’s analysis blurs the distinction between statutorily conferred discretion, on the one hand, and the exercise of inherent judicial power, on the other.
A Deferred Acceptance of Plea Program was created in the district courts in 1971. State v. Martin, 56 Haw. 292, 294 n. 2, 535 P.2d 127, 128 n. 2 (1975). “A similar DAG Program [was] also ... instituted in the circuit court.” Id. At the time,
[i]nherent in the court‘s power in the disposition of a matter properly before [it was] the power to grant or deny, where applicable, a motion for DAG plea. While this practice [was] not expressly incorporated in any statutory provision, such power [was] necessarily implicit in the proper and orderly administration of justice.
Id. at 294, 535 P.2d at 128 (emphasis added) (footnote omitted).
Effective May 27, 1976, the legislature enacted HRS ch. 853, which codified a mechanism for the deferred acceptance of guilty pleas, although the statute was silent with respect to pleas of nolo contendere or no contest. 1976 Haw. Sess. L. Act 154, §§ 1 through 3 at 279-81. Accordingly, tire courts retained the inherent power to allow the deferred acceptance of no contest pleas. State v. Brown, 1 Haw.App. 602, 604, 623 P.2d 892, 893 (1981) (“Chapter 853 does not mention DANC pleas. It only refers to DAG pleas. It is a settled rule of statutory interpretation that the legislature, in the enactment of a statute, will not be presumed to intend to overturn long established legal principles, unless such intention is made clearly to appear by express declaration or by necessary implication.... We think the rule applies as much to inherent powers as it does to ‘long established legal principles.’ Therefore, we hold that chapter 853 did not take away the trial court’s inherent power to grant or deny DANC pleas.” (Citations and some internal quotation signals omitted.)). “By necessary implication,” HRS ch. 853 coopted the field previously occupied by inherent judicial power with respect to granting and denying DAG pleas.
Effective June 14, 1983, die legislature amended HRS ch. 853 to extend to the grant and denial of DANC pleas, see 1983 Haw. Sess. L. Act 290, §§ 1 through 6 at 617-18, thereby legislatively overruling State v. Keahi, 66 Haw. 364, 365, 662 P.2d 212, 213 (1983) (holding that “the trial court had inherent power to grant or deny acceptance of a deferred acceptance of nolo contendere plea”), on which Justice Acoba relies, see concurring opinion at 415, 70 P.3d at 641. Never again would the appellate courts of this state invoke the construct of “inherent powers” in the context of tire deferral of guilty and no contest pleas; rather, they would look to the controlling language of HRS ch. 853 to ascertain whether the trial courts possessed the discretion to allow DAG and DANC pleas in any given matter. See, e.g., State v. Tom, 69 Haw. 602, 603-04, 752 P.2d 597, 598 (1988); Oshiro, 69 Haw. at 440, 443-48, 746 P.2d at 569, 571-74; Dannenberg, 74 Haw. at 80, 837 P.2d at 778-79; State v. Adams, 76 Hawai‘i 408, 415, 879 P.2d 513, 520 (1994); State v. Hamili, 87 Hawai‘i 102, 952 P.2d 390 (1998); State v. Putnam, 93 Hawai‘i 362, 368, 3 P.3d 1239, 1245 (2000); State v. Matyas, 10 Haw.App. 31, 38, 859 P.2d 1380, 1384 (1993); State v. Wong, 10 Haw.App. 148, 158, 861 P.2d 759, 765 (1993); State v. Kimsel, 101 Hawai‘i 65, 67-68, 62 P.3d 628, 630-31 (App.2002), cert. denied, 101 Hawai‘i 95, 63 P.3d 403 (2003).
Concurrence Opinion
Concurring Opinion by
ACOBA, J.I concur in the result reached because, in the absence of the legislature’s prohibition of a deferred acceptance of guilty (DAG) or deferred acceptance of no contest (DANC) plea for a particular offense, a trial court has the inherent power to grant or deny a DAG or DANC plea. Inasmuch as the legislature has not prohibited a DANC plea with respect to assault in the second degree, Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS)
In this case, it is aptly noted that the Hawai‘i Penal Code defines three types of bodily injury in
“We have previously recognized that ‘courts have inherent equity, supervisory, and administrative powers as well as inherent power to control the litigation process before them.’ ” State v. Harrison, 95 Hawai‘i 28, 32, 18 P.3d 890, 894 (2001) (quoting Kawamata Farms, Inc. v. United Agri Prods., 86 Hawai‘i 214, 242, 948 P.2d 1055, 1083 (1997) (quoting Richardson v. Sport Shinko (Waikiki Corp.), 76 Hawai‘i 494, 507, 880 P.2d 169, 182 (1994))).3 In that regard, in Martin, the first case to consider the power of a court to grant a DAG plea, this court held that “[ijnherent in the court’s
In fact, recognition of this inherent power in entertaining and granting motions for deferred acceptance pleas preceded the legislature’s passage :of HRS chapter 853, which sets forth those offenses subject to DAG and DANC pleas. See 1976 Haw. Sess. L. Act 154, § 1-4, at 279-81 (stating effective date as May 27, 1976). Prior to the initial enactment of chapter 853, the judiciary’s own “Deferred Acceptance of Plea Program ... [had been] in effect in the district court since 1971,” and “[a] similar DAG Program [had] also been instituted in the circuit court.” Martin, 56 Haw. at 294 n. 2, 535 P.2d at 128 n. 2. In light of this history, the legislature’s failure to specifically preclude a deferred acceptance plea for instances involving “substantial bodily injury” leaves undisturbed the court’s inherent power to grant or deny Defendant’s motion for a DANC plea.6 Cf. State v. Oshiro, 69 Haw. 438, 447, 746 P.2d 568, 573 (1987) (determining that negligent homicide in the second degree, “HRS 707-704 is not within the group of offenses subject to HRS 853—4(1)[ ]”, which “evidences that the legislature did not mean to divest a trial court of the discretion to grant a DAG plea or a DANC plea for violations of
To the extent the legislature has established the parameters of DAG and DANC plea dispensation via HRS chapter 853, it has not done so when “substantial bodily injury” results. Cf. LeMay v. Leander, 92 Hawai‘i 614, 621, 994 P.2d 546, 553 (2000) (noting that, “[although the power to punish for contempt is an inherent power of the courts, the legislature may establish alternative procedures and penalties that do not unduly
Furthermore, “[i]t is also abundantly clear that[,] when properly exercised, the judge’s discretionary aetion[, such as granting or denying a DAG or DANC plea,] will not be disturbed ... unless there has been a plain and manifest abuse of such a discretion.” Martin, 56 Haw. at 294, 535 P.2d at 128. The State of Hawai‘i (the prosecution) has not argued any such abuse of discretion. Thus, if the legislature has not spoken, as it clearly has not in this ease, of whether
Based upon the foregoing, I concur that the prosecution’s petition for a writ directed to a judge must be denied.
.
§ 707-711 Assault in the second degree. (1)A person commits the offense of assault in the second degree if:
(a) The person intentionally or knowingly causes substantial bodily injury to another[.]
.
“Bodily injury” means physical pain, illness, or any impairment of physical condition.
[[Image here]]
“Substantial bodily injury” means bodily injury which causes:
(1) A major avulsion, laceration, or penetration of the skin;
(2) A burn of at least second degree severity;
(3) A bone fracture;
(4) A serious concussion; or
(5) A tearing, rupture, or corrosive damage to the esophagus, viscera, or other internal organs.
[[Image here]]
“Serious bodily injury” means bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any body member or organ.
.It has been said that ” ‘[¡Inherent powers of the court are derived from the state Constitution and are not confined by or dependent on statute.’ ” Enos v. Pacific Transfer & Warehouse, Inc., 79 Hawai‘i 452, 458, 903 P.2d 1273, 1279 (quoting Richardson, 76 Hawai‘i at 507, 880 P.2d at 182 (citations omitted)), reconsideration denied, 80 Hawai‘i 187, 907 P.2d 773 (1995).
. Similarly, in Brown, the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) held that “the trial court has inherent power to grant or deny a motion for DANC plea.” 1 Haw.App. at 603, 623 P.2d at 893. The ICA further noted that, “[i]n our view, the power to receive a plea necessarily includes the power to defer its acceptance. ‘(S)uch power is necessarily implicit in the proper and orderly administration of justice.’ ” Id. (quoting Martin, 56 Haw. at 294, 535 P.2d at 127). Thus, both this court and the ICA have clearly recognized an inherent power in the trial courts to grant or deny a motion for a deferred plea.
. The following cases are not contrary to Martin and cases holding similarly, inasmuch as they refer to HRS chapter 853, and the existence of that chapter did not require consideration of the trial court‘s inherent power: State v. Putnam, 93 Hawai‘i 362, 368, 3 P.3d 1239, 1245 (2000); State v. Hamili, 87 Hawai‘i 102, 104-07, 952 P.2d 390, 392-95 (1998) (per curiam); State v. Adams, 76 Hawai‘i 408, 415, 879 P.2d.513, 520 (1994); State v. Dannenberg, 74 Haw. 75, 80, 837 P.2d 776, 778-79, reconsideration denied, 843 P.2d 144 (1992); State v. Tom, 69 Haw. 602, 603-04, 752 P.2d 597, 598 (1988); State v. Oshi-ro, 69 Haw. 438, 440, 443-48, 746 P.2d 568, 569, 571-74 (1987); State v. Kimsel, 101 Hawai‘i 65, 67-68, 62 P.3d 628, 630-31 (App.2002), cert. denied, 101 Hawai‘i 95, 63 P.3d 403 (2003); State v. Matyas, 10 Haw.App. 31, 38, 859 P.2d 1380, 1384 (1993).
. In Brown, the ICA noted that “[i]t is a settled rule of statutory interpretation that ‘the legislature, in the enactment of a statute, will not be presumed to intend to overturn long established legal principles, unless such intention is made clearly to appear by express declarations or by necessary implication[.]’ ” 1 Haw.App. at 604, 623 P.2d at 893 (quoting 73 Am.Jur.2d Statutes § 181 (1974) (citations omitted)). The Brown court further stated that “we think the rule applies as much to inherent powers as it does to long established legal principles.” Id. (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted). The legislature has made no express declaration, within HRS chapter 853, prohibiting trial courts from granting a DAG or DANC plea when “substantial bodily injury” results.
. In Keahi, this court specifically noted that it did “not pass upon the issue of whether § 853-1, as amended in 1979, impermissibly infringes upon the judiciary’s inherent power to accept deferred acceptance of guilty pleas.” 66 Haw. at 365 n. 1, 662 P.2d at 213 n. 1; see also Brown, 1 Haw.App. at 603 n. 4, 623 P.2d at 893 n. 4 (noting that it did “not reach the issue whether the legislature has the power to legislate judicial procedure which it possibly has done in the enactment of HRS chapter 853”).
Dissenting Opinion
Dissenting Opinion of
MOON, C.J.,in which NAKAYAMA, J., joins.
In interpreting statutes, this court has stated:
The starting point in statutory construction is to determine the legislative intent from the language of the statute itself. Our foremost obligation when interpreting a statute is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature, which is obtained primarily from the language contained in the statute itself. We read statutory language in the context of the entire statute, and construe it in a manner consistent with its purpose. A rational, sensible and practicable interpretation of a statute is preferred to one which is unreasonable or impracticable. The legislature is presumed, not to intend an absurd result, and legislation mil be construed to avoid, if possible, inconsistency, contradiction, and illogicality.
State v. Bautista, 86 Hawai‘i 207, 209-10, 948 P.2d 1048, 1050-51 (1997) (emphasis added) (citations, brackets, and quotation marks omitted). I believe the majority’s interpretation of Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 853-4 (Supp.2002) leads to an inconsistent, contradictory, and illogical result. I, therefore, respectfully dissent.
The prosecution contends that Respondent violated
[t]he offense charged is a felony that involves the intentional, knowing, or reckless bodily injury or’ serious bodily injury of another person, or is a misdemeanor or petty misdemeanor that carries a mandatory minimum sentence and that involves the intentional, knowing, or reckless bodily injury or serious bodily injury of another person[.]
The question, then, is whether the crime charged in the present case involves “serious bodily injury” or “bodily injury.”
Here, the defendant was charged with assault in the second degree for punching, and thereby cutting and breaking, another person’s nose.
(1) A major avulsion, laceration, or penetration of the skin;
(2) A burn of at least second degree severity;
(3) A bone fracture;
(4) A serious concussion; or
(5) A tearing, rupture, or corrosive damage to the esophagus, viscera, or other internal organs.
As indicated by the prosecution, it is inherent in the classification scheme created by’
The defendant in the present case was charged with assault in the second degree, a felony involving the intentional or knowing causation of “substantial bodily injury.” As noted supra, the plain language of
The majority maintains that it is bound by the plain language of
The legislative history indicates that, when
. Prior to 1986,