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 ).

2024Walter must "show specific errors or omissions reflecting counsel's lack of skill, judgment, or diligence, and that these errors or omissions resulted in either the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense." Id. (cleaned up).

2018The defendant must establish: (1) " 'specific errors or omissions reflecting [defense] counsel's lack of skill, judgment or diligence' "; and (2) "that 'these errors or omissions resulted in either the withdrawal or substantial impairment, of a potentially meritorious defense.' " Id. (citation, ellipsis points, and brackets omitted).

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)).

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

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

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) ).

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).

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).

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

2010The ICA recited the definition of an ap-pealable as “ ‘an error or omission by counsel, judge, or jury resulting in the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense.’ ” Id. (quoting Dan v. State, 76 Hawai'i 423, 432-33 , 879 P.2d 528, 537-38 (1994)); see also Briones, 74 Haw. at 465-67 , 848 P.2d at 977-78 (quoted supra).

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).

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").

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

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).

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).

1996To meet this burden, the defendant 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.” Id. at 83 , 881 P.2d at 1229 (quoting Domingo v. State, 76 Hawai'i 237, 241 , 873 P.2d 775, 779 (1994)).

1996"In order to establish the ineffectiveness of counsel at trial, 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." Domingo , 76 Hawai`i at 241, 873 P.2d at 779 (internal quotation marks omitted). [1] See Majority note 7. [2] See Majority note 9. [3] See Majority note 2.

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).

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 .

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.

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).

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

2011State v. Christian, 88 Hawai'i 407, 419 , 967 P.2d 239, 251 (1998).

2011State v. Christian, 88 Hawai'i 407, 419 , 967 P.2d 239, 251 (1998).

2010See also Revco, D.S., Inc. v. Cooper, 873 S.W.2d 391, 397 (Tex.App.1994) (holding that discovery sanctions “so severe they prevent a trial on the merits are warranted only where the record reflects a party’s flagrant bad faith or counsel’s callous disregard for the discovery rales”).

2009See also Revco, D.S., Inc. v. Cooper, 873 S.W.2d 391, 397 (Tex.App.1994) (holding that discovery sanctions “so severe they prevent a trial on the merits are warranted only where the record reflects a party’s flagrant bad faith or counsel’s callous disregard for the discovery rules”).

2009State v. Silva, 75 Haw. 419, 440 , 864 P.2d 583, 593 (1993); State v. McNulty, 60 Haw. 259, 269 , 588 P.2d 438, 446 (1978), overruled on other grounds by Raines v. State, 79 Hawaii 219 , 900 P.2d 1286 (1995). (2) The circuit court did not err by denying the Rule 40 Petition without a hearing on the issue of whether trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the jury instruction on defense of others.

2009State v. Silva, 75 Haw. 419, 440 , 864 P.2d 583, 593 (1993); State v. McNulty, 60 Haw. 259, 269 , 588 P.2d 438, 446 (1978), overruled on other grounds by Raines v. State, 79 Hawaii 219 , 900 P.2d 1286 (1995). (2) The circuit court did not err by denying the Rule 40 Petition without a hearing on the issue of whether trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the jury instruction on defense of others.

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

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

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) ).

1994Essentially, Appellant failed to allege any “facts showing that such ‘errors or omissions resulted in either the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense.’ ” Allen, 7 Haw.App. at 94 , 744 P.2d at 793 (quoting State v. Casipe, 5 Haw.App. 210, 217 , 686 P.2d 28, 34 (1984)); see Briones, 74 Haw. at 460 -461 n. 11, 848 P.2d at 975 -76 n. 11; see also State v. Aplaca, 74 Haw. 54, 71-72 , 837 P.2d 1298, 1307 (1992).

1994Essentially, Appellant failed to allege any “facts showing that such ‘errors or omissions resulted in either the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense.’ ” Allen, 7 Haw.App. at 94 , 744 P.2d at 793 (quoting State v. Casipe, 5 Haw.App. 210, 217 , 686 P.2d 28, 34 (1984)); see Briones, 74 Haw. at 460 -461 n. 11, 848 P.2d at 975 -76 n. 11; see also State v. Aplaca, 74 Haw. 54, 71-72 , 837 P.2d 1298, 1307 (1992).