potentially meritorious defense in Hawaii

2022"Second, the defendant must establish that these errors or omissions resulted in either the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense." Id. (citing Antone, 62 Haw. at 348-49 , 615 P.2d at 104 ).

2022"Second, the defendant must establish that these errors or omissions resulted in either the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense." Id. (citing Antone, 62 Haw. at 348-49 , 615 P.2d at 104 ).

2020Regarding Abihai’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the ICA first noted that under State v. Wakisaka, 102 Hawaiʻi 504, 513-14, 78 P.3d 317, 326-27 (2003), [t]he defendant has the burden of establishing ineffective assistance of counsel and must meet the following two part test: 1) that there were specific errors or omissions reflecting counsel’s lack of skill, judgment, or diligence; and 2) that such errors or omissions resulted in either the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense. 14 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

2020The Aplaca court thus concluded that trial counsel’s error resulted in the substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense and the denial of the defendant’s right to the effective assistance of counsel.17 Id.; accord State v. Silva, 75 Haw. 419, 442-43 , 864 P.2d 583, 594 (1993) (holding that the failure to subpoena a witness that “could have significantly bolstered Silva’s version of the incident” resulted in substantial impairment of defense); State v. Wakisaka, 102 Hawai‘i 504, 517, 78 P.3d 317, 330 (2003) 17 The dissent argues that the holding in Aplaca is inapposite because ot

2026"To determine whether defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance on appeal, a petitioner must show that counsel did not raise an 'appealable issue,' which is an error or omission by counsel that results in the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense." Batalona v. State, 142 Hawaiʻi 84, 98, 414 P.3d 136, 150 (2018) (citing Briones, 74 Haw. at 465-66 , 848 P.2d at 977 ).

2026"To determine whether defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance on appeal, a petitioner must show that counsel did not raise an 'appealable issue,' which is an error or omission by counsel that results in the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense." Batalona v. State, 142 Hawaiʻi 84, 98, 414 P.3d 136, 150 (2018) (citing Briones, 74 Haw. at 465-66 , 848 P.2d at 977 ).

2026Damon must establish "that there were specific errors or omissions reflecting counsel's lack of skill, judgment, or diligence," and "that such errors or omissions resulted in either the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense." State v. Richie, 88 Hawaiʻi 19, 39, 960 P.2d 1227, 1247 (1998) (citations omitted).

2026Damon must establish "that there were specific errors or omissions reflecting counsel's lack of skill, judgment, or diligence," and "that such errors or omissions resulted in either the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense." State v. Richie, 88 Hawaiʻi 19, 39, 960 P.2d 1227, 1247 (1998) (citations omitted).

2020This court held in Aplaca that counsel’s failure to investigate potential witnesses and review discovery materials prevented relevant impeachment testimony from being adduced at trial, which possibly impaired a potentially meritorious defense, and we therefore concluded that counsel’s assistance was ineffective. 74 Haw. at 72-73, 837 P.2d at 1307-08 .

2019To demonstrate that trial counsel is constitutionally ineffective, a defendant must demonstrate "1) that there were specific errors or omissions reflecting counsel's lack of skill, judgment, or diligence; and 2) that such errors or omissions resulted in either the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense." State v. Silva , 75 Hawai'i 419 , 440, 864 P.2d 583 , 593 (1993) (quoting State v. Aplaca , 74 Haw. 54 , 66-67, 837 P.2d 1298 , 1305 (1992) ).

2026To prove ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must show "1) that there were specific errors or omissions reflecting counsel's lack of skill, judgment, or diligence; and 2) that such errors or omissions resulted in either the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense." Grindling v. State, 144 Hawai i 444, 451, 445 P.3d 25, 32 (2019) (quoting State v. Silva, 75 Hawai i 419, 440, 864 P.2d 583, 593 (1993)).

2026To prove ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must show "1) that there were specific errors or omissions reflecting counsel's lack of skill, judgment, or diligence; and 2) that such errors or omissions resulted in either the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense." Grindling v. State, 144 Hawai i 444, 451, 445 P.3d 25, 32 (2019) (quoting State v. Silva, 75 Hawai i 419, 440, 864 P.2d 583, 593 (1993)).

2021"To demonstrate that trial counsel is constitutionally ineffective, a defendant must demonstrate '1) that there were specific errors or omissions reflecting counsel's lack of skill, judgment, or diligence; and 2) that such errors or omissions resulted in either the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense.'" Grindling v. State, 144 Hawai#i 444, 451, 7 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER 445 P.3d 25, 32 (2019) (quoting State v. Silva, 75 Hawai#i 419, 440, 864 P.2d 583, 593 (1993)); see Dan, 76 Hawai#i at 427, 879 P.2d at 532 ("Th

2018An “appealable issue" is "an error or omission by NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER counsel, judge, or jury resulting in the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense." Dan, 76 Hawai'i at 432-33, 879 P.2d at 537-38 (quoting Briones, 74 Haw. at 465-66, 848 P.2d at 977). 1.

2023"The burden of establishing ineffectiveness rests with the defendant[,]" and "[defendant's] claim of inadequate assistance will be upheld only if he can show there were specific errors or omissions . . . reflecting counsel's lack of skill, judgment, or diligence, and these errors or omissions resulted in either the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense." State v. Smith, 68 Haw. 304, 309 , 712 P.2d 496, 500 (1986) (cleaned up).

2023"The burden of establishing ineffectiveness rests with the defendant[,]" and "[defendant's] claim of inadequate assistance will be upheld only if he can show there were specific errors or omissions . . . reflecting counsel's lack of skill, judgment, or diligence, and these errors or omissions resulted in either the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense." State v. Smith, 68 Haw. 304, 309 , 712 P.2d 496, 500 (1986) (cleaned up).

2026See State v. DeLeon, 131 Hawaiʻi 463, 478-79, 319 P.3d 382, 397-98 (2014) (requiring that the "specific errors or omissions reflecting counsel's lack of skill, judgment, or diligence" result in "either the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense" to establish ineffective assistance of counsel).

2026See State v. DeLeon, 131 Hawaiʻi 463, 478-79, 319 P.3d 382, 397-98 (2014) (requiring that the "specific errors or omissions reflecting counsel's lack of skill, judgment, or diligence" result in "either the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense" to establish ineffective assistance of counsel).

2018An “appealable issue" is "an error or omission by NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER counsel, judge, or jury resulting in the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense." Dan, 76 Hawai'i at 432-33, 879 P.2d at 537-38 (quoting Briones, 74 Haw. at 465-66, 848 P.2d at 977). 1.

2016To meet that burden, the defendant must demonstrate: "1) that there were specific errors or omissions reflecting counsel's lack of skill, judgment, or diligence; and 2) that such errors or omissions resulted in either the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense." Domingo v. State, 76 Hawai‘i.237, 241, 873 P.2d 775, 779 (1994) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

2009See State v. Edwards, 81 Hawai'i 293, 301 , 916 P.2d 703, 711 (1996) (concluding that "given the overwhelming nature of the evidence linking [defendant] to the crimes charged," defense counsel's failure to object did not "result[] in either the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense").

2009See State v. Edwards, 81 Hawai'i 293, 301 , 916 P.2d 703, 711 (1996) (concluding that "given the overwhelming nature of the evidence linking [defendant] to the crimes charged," defense counsel's failure to object did not "result[] in either the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense").

2020Maddox v. State, 141 Hawaiʻi 196, 205, 407 P.3d 152 , 161 (2017) (quoting Wilton v. State, 116 Hawaiʻi 106, 119, 170 P.3d 357, 370 (2007)).

2019The burden rests on the Petitioner to prove: “1) that there were specific errors or omissions reflecting counsel’s lack of skill, judgment, or diligence; and 2) that such errors or omissions resulted in either the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense.” Wilton v. State, 116 Hawai‘i 106, 110-11, 170 P.3d 357, 361-62 (2007) (internal citations omitted).

2019State v. Christian, 88 Hawai‘i 407, 419, 967 P.2d 239, 251 (1998).

2014In order to establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show, among other things, "a possible impairment .. . of a potentially meritorious defense." State v. Wakisaka, 102 Hawai‘i 504, 514, 78 P.3d 317, 327 (2003) (citing State v. Christian, 88 Hawai‘i 407, 419, 967 p.2d 239, 251 (1998)).

2018A defendant who raises a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel bears the burden of proving "1) that there were specific errors or omissions reflecting counsel's lack of skill, judgment, or diligence; and 2) that such errors or omissions resulted in either the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense." State v. Richie , 88 Hawai'i 19 , 39, 960 P.2d 1227 , 1247 (1998) (quoting State v. Fukusaku, 85 Hawai'i 462 , 480, 946 P.2d 32 , 50 (1997) ).

2018A defendant who raises a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel bears the burden of proving "1) that there were specific errors or omissions reflecting counsel's lack of skill, judgment, or diligence; and 2) that such errors or omissions resulted in either the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense." State v. Richie , 88 Hawai'i 19 , 39, 960 P.2d 1227 , 1247 (1998) (quoting State v. Fukusaku, 85 Hawai'i 462 , 480, 946 P.2d 32 , 50 (1997) ).

2009State v. Reed, 77 Hawai`i 72, 83, 881 P.2d 1218, 1229 (1994). [Stanley] has failed to demonstrate how the omission of the black bag from evidence resulted in the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense, and this ground is accordingly patently frivolous and devoid of merit. 8. [Stanley's] fourth ground claims that the State used evidence that was obtained by an unconstitutional search and seizure.

2006All in all and in sum, we conclude that Defendant has failed to carry his burden to demonstrate “1) that there were specific errors or omissions reflecting counsel’s lack of skill, judgment, or diligence; and 2) that such errors or omissions resulted in either the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense.” Reed, 77 Hawai'i at 83 , 881 P.2d at 1229 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2020Thus, in order to prove a violation of this right, the defendant bears the burden of proof on two elements: “1) that there were specific errors or omissions reflecting counsel’s lack of skill, judgment, or diligence; and 2) that such errors or omissions resulted in either the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense.” Id. at 514, 78 P.3d at 327 . 18 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** Counsel’s assistance “need not be errorless,” State v. Antone, 62 Haw. 346, 348 , 615 P.2d 101, 104 (1980), but must be merely “within the range

2020Thus, in order to prove a violation of this right, the defendant bears the burden of proof on two elements: “1) that there were specific errors or omissions reflecting counsel’s lack of skill, judgment, or diligence; and 2) that such errors or omissions resulted in either the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense.” Id. at 514, 78 P.3d at 327 . 18 *** FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER *** Counsel’s assistance “need not be errorless,” State v. Antone, 62 Haw. 346, 348 , 615 P.2d 101, 104 (1980), but must be merely “within the range

2005The next question we must address is whether the Deputy Public Defender’s errors “resulted in either the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense.” Jones, 96 Hawai'i at 166 , 29 P.3d at 356 .

2005The next question we must address is whether the Deputy Public Defender’s errors “resulted in either the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense.” Jones, 96 Hawai'i at 166 , 29 P.3d at 356 .

2026Because there was sufficient evidence to support Pasley's convictions, there was no "withdrawal or 10 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense." See Yuen, 154 Hawaiʻi at 444, 555 P.3d at 131 (citation omitted).

2026Thus, to the extent Pasley relies on a lack-of-sexual- intent defense, Pasley fails to show a "withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense." See Yuen, 154 Hawaiʻi at 444, 555 P.3d at 131 (citation omitted). (c) Pasley argues that defense counsel was ineffective for not moving for a judgment of acquittal. "[T]he failure to file a motion for judgment of acquittal within the time allowed has not precluded a court from reviewing the case on appeal to avoid manifest injustice." State v. Chen, 77 Hawai‘i 329, 333, 884 P.2d 392, 396 (App. 1994).

2022"If, however, the alleged error or omission had no obvious basis for benefitting the case and resulted in the withdrawal or impairment of a potentially meritorious defense, then the assistance of defendant's counsel was constitutionally inadequate." Id. (citing State v. Smith, 68 Haw. 304, 309-11 , 712 P.2d 496, 500-01 (1986)).

2020Specific actions or omissions that are alleged to be erroneous but that had an obvious tactical basis for benefitting the defendant’s case will not be subject to further scrutiny. 23 ***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER*** State v. Pacheco, 96 Hawai‘i 83, 93, 26 P.3d 572, 582 (2001).11 If, however, the alleged error or omission had no obvious basis for benefitting the case and resulted in the withdrawal or impairment of a potentially meritorious defense, then the assistance of defendant’s counsel was constitutionally inadequate.

2014NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER State v. De Guair, 108 Hawai‘i 179, 187, 118 P.3d 662, 670 (2005) (emphasis, ellipses and brackets omitted) (quoting Briones v. State, 74 Haw. 442, 462-63, 848 P.2d 966, 976 (1993)).

2013State v. De Guair, 108 Hawai‘i 179, 187, 118 P.3d 662, 670 (2005) (ellipses and brackets omitted) (quoting Briones v. State, 74 Haw. 442, 462-63, 848 P.2d 966, 976 (1993)).

2012NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS OR THE PACIFIC REPORTER appeal, Maxilom failed to show that he was provided with ineffective assistance of counsel as follows: (1) & (2) Maxilom did not make a colorable claim that he was denied effective assistance of trial counsel because he failed to assert how his trial counsel's failure to call various witnesses resulted in "the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense." Barnett, 91 Hawai‘i at 26-27, 979 P.2d at 1052-53; Dan v. State, 76 Hawai‘i 423, 427, 879 P.2d 528, 532 (1994) (setting forth the standard for

2008Barnett v. State, 91 Hawaii 20, 27 , 979 P.2d 1046, 1052-53 (1999).

1992The defendant *67 has the burden of establishing ineffective assistance of counsel and must meet the following two-part test: 1) that there were specific errors or omissions reflecting counsel’s lack of skill, judgment, or diligence; and 2) that such errors or omissions resulted in either the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense. 2 Id.; accord State v. Morishige, 65 Haw. 354, 369 , 652 P.2d 1119, 1130 (1982); State v. Antone, 62 Haw. 346, 348-49 , 615 P.2d 101, 104 (1980); Stough v. State, 62 Haw. 620, 623 , 618 P.2d 301, 304 (1980).

1992The defendant *67 has the burden of establishing ineffective assistance of counsel and must meet the following two-part test: 1) that there were specific errors or omissions reflecting counsel’s lack of skill, judgment, or diligence; and 2) that such errors or omissions resulted in either the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense. 2 Id.; accord State v. Morishige, 65 Haw. 354, 369 , 652 P.2d 1119, 1130 (1982); State v. Antone, 62 Haw. 346, 348-49 , 615 P.2d 101, 104 (1980); Stough v. State, 62 Haw. 620, 623 , 618 P.2d 301, 304 (1980).

2026"Second, the defendant must establish that these errors or omissions resulted in either the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense." Id. (citations omitted).

2026"Second, the defendant must establish that these errors or omissions resulted in either the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense." Id. (citations omitted).

2026Thus, to the extent Pasley relies on a lack-of-sexual- intent defense, Pasley fails to show a "withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense." See Yuen, 154 Hawaiʻi at 444, 555 P.3d at 131 (citation omitted). (c) Pasley argues that defense counsel was ineffective for not moving for a judgment of acquittal. "[T]he failure to file a motion for judgment of acquittal within the time allowed has not precluded a court from reviewing the case on appeal to avoid manifest injustice." State v. Chen, 77 Hawai‘i 329, 333, 884 P.2d 392, 396 (App. 1994).

2026Thus, to the extent Pasley relies on a lack-of-sexual- intent defense, Pasley fails to show a "withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense." See Yuen, 154 Hawaiʻi at 444, 555 P.3d at 131 (citation omitted). (c) Pasley argues that defense counsel was ineffective for not moving for a judgment of acquittal. "[T]he failure to file a motion for judgment of acquittal within the time allowed has not precluded a court from reviewing the case on appeal to avoid manifest injustice." State v. Chen, 77 Hawai‘i 329, 333, 884 P.2d 392, 396 (App. 1994).

2026See Weinberg, 123 Hawai#i at 73, 229 P.3d at 1138 (noting that "a sanction that precludes a material witness from testifying . . . effectively dismisses a potentially meritorious claim without a trial").

2026See Weinberg, 123 Hawai#i at 73, 229 P.3d at 1138 (noting that "a sanction that precludes a material witness from testifying . . . effectively dismisses a potentially meritorious claim without a trial").

2026"To determine whether defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance on appeal, a petitioner must show that counsel did not raise an 'appealable issue,' which is an error or omission by counsel that results in the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense." Batalona v. State, 142 Hawaiʻi 84, 98, 414 P.3d 136, 150 (2018) (citing Briones, 74 Haw. at 465-66 , 848 P.2d at 977 ).

2019Batalona v. State, 142 Hawai‘i 84, 98, 414 P.3d 136, 150 (2018). "[A]n ‘appealable issue' is ‘an error or omission by counsel that results in the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense." Id., (quoting Briones, 74 Haw. at 465-66, 848 P.2da at 977).

2026To prove ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must show "1) that there were specific errors or omissions reflecting counsel's lack of skill, judgment, or diligence; and 2) that such errors or omissions resulted in either the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense." Grindling v. State, 144 Hawai i 444, 451, 445 P.3d 25, 32 (2019) (quoting State v. Silva, 75 Hawai i 419, 440, 864 P.2d 583, 593 (1993)).

2026To prove ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must show "1) that there were specific errors or omissions reflecting counsel's lack of skill, judgment, or diligence; and 2) that such errors or omissions resulted in either the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense." Grindling v. State, 144 Hawai i 444, 451, 445 P.3d 25, 32 (2019) (quoting State v. Silva, 75 Hawai i 419, 440, 864 P.2d 583, 593 (1993)).

2022In light of our ruling that the SR-22 requirement is a collateral consequence of an excessive speeding conviction, OPD's failure to advise Yamauchi about the possible SR-22 requirement was not a "specific error[] or omission[] reflecting defense counsel's lack of skill, judgment or diligence[,]" nor did it result "in either the withdrawal or substantial impairment[] of a potentially meritorious defense." Najera v. State, 143 Hawai#i 83, 88, 422 P.3d 661, 666 (App. 2018) (cleaned up).2 2 In Najera, the petitioner "asserted that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial cou

2022In light of our ruling that the SR-22 requirement is a collateral consequence of an excessive speeding conviction, OPD's failure to advise Yamauchi about the possible SR-22 requirement was not a "specific error[] or omission[] reflecting defense counsel's lack of skill, judgment or diligence[,]" nor did it result "in either the withdrawal or substantial impairment[] of a potentially meritorious defense." Najera v. State, 143 Hawai#i 83, 88, 422 P.3d 661, 666 (App. 2018) (cleaned up).2 2 In Najera, the petitioner "asserted that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his trial cou

2007Consequently, there must be “a specific error or omission that ‘resulted in either the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense,’ which includes ‘the assertion of [his] constitutional rights[,]’ ” id. (quoting Briones, 74 Haw. at 462 , 848 P.2d at 976 (other citation omitted)), and that “there were no legitimate ‘tactical’ bases upon which defense counsel’s omissions could conceivable have been predicated^]” id. at 395, 49 P.3d at 361 .

2007Consequently, there must be "a specific error or omission that `resulted in either the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense,' which includes `the assertion of [his] constitutional rights[,]'" id. (quoting Briones, 74 Haw. at 462 , 848 P.2d at 976 (other citation omitted)), and that "there were no legitimate `tactical' bases upon which defense counsel's omissions could conceivable have been predicated[,]" id. at 395, 49 P.3d at 361 .