and pacific reporter defendant in Hawaii

2021On appeal, "[e]vidence adduced in the trial court must be considered in the strongest light for the prosecution when the appellate court passes on the legal sufficiency of such evidence to support a conviction[.]" State v. Kalaola, 124 Hawai#i 43, 49, 237 P.3d 1109, 1115 (2010) (quoting State v. Richie, 88 Hawai#i 19, 33, 960 P.2d 1227, 1241 (1998) (internal quotations and citation omitted)).

2021On appeal, "[e]vidence adduced in the trial court must be considered in the strongest light for the prosecution when the appellate court passes on the legal sufficiency of such evidence to support a conviction[.]" State v. Kalaola, 124 Hawai#i 43, 49, 237 P.3d 1109, 1115 (2010) (quoting State v. Richie, 88 Hawai#i 19, 33, 960 P.2d 1227, 1241 (1998) (internal quotations and citation omitted)).

2021See Tachibana v. State, 79 Hawai#i 226, 236, 900 P.2d 1293, 1303 (1995). 8 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER error, the appellant shall serve a copy of the brief on the attorney alleged to have been ineffective.

2020See Tachibana, 79 Hawai#i at 240, 900 P.2d at 1307 ("Once a violation of the constitutional right to testify is established, the conviction must be vacated unless the State can prove that the violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt"); State v. Hoang, 94 Hawai#i 271, 279, 12 P.3d 371, 379 (App. 2000) ("In general, it is inherently difficult, if not impossible, to divine what effect a violation of the 3 In light of our conclusion, we need not address Stern's other claims that the District Court violated Tachibana. 4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER defe

2021On appeal, "[e]vidence adduced in the trial court must be considered in the strongest light for the prosecution when the appellate court passes on the legal sufficiency of such evidence to support a conviction[.]" State v. Kalaola, 124 Hawai#i 43, 49, 237 P.3d 1109, 1115 (2010) (quoting State v. Richie, 88 Hawai#i 19, 33, 960 P.2d 1227, 1241 (1998) (internal quotations and citation omitted)).

2021On appeal, "[e]vidence adduced in the trial court must be considered in the strongest light for the prosecution when the appellate court passes on the legal sufficiency of such evidence to support a conviction[.]" State v. Kalaola, 124 Hawai#i 43, 49, 237 P.3d 1109, 1115 (2010) (quoting State v. Richie, 88 Hawai#i 19, 33, 960 P.2d 1227, 1241 (1998) (internal quotations and citation omitted)).

2026Haw. 2000). 15 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER motion." Amfac, 74 Haw. at 114, 839 P.2d at 27.

2026Haw. 2000). 15 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER motion." Amfac, 74 Haw. at 114, 839 P.2d at 27.

2026Id. at 227-28, 81 P.3d at 407-08.

2026Id. at 227-28, 81 P.3d at 407-08 .

2026P'ship, 119 Hawaiʻi 352, 373, 198 P.3d 615, 636 (2008) ("As a general rule, if a party does not raise an argument at trial, that argument will be deemed to have been waived on appeal; this 3 Rahimi held that a federal statute prohibiting an individual subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a firearm is consistent with the Second Amendment, if the order includes a finding that the individual represented a credible threat to the physical safety of an intimate partner. 602 U.S. at 690. 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER rule applies in b

2026P'ship, 119 Hawaiʻi 352, 373, 198 P.3d 615, 636 (2008) ("As a general rule, if a party does not raise an argument at trial, that argument will be deemed to have been waived on appeal; this 3 Rahimi held that a federal statute prohibiting an individual subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a firearm is consistent with the Second Amendment, if the order includes a finding that the individual represented a credible threat to the physical safety of an intimate partner. 602 U.S. at 690. 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER rule applies in b

2026Second, Livingston challenged the imposition of mandatory minimum sentencing as a repeat offender, arguing his sentence violated the requirement in State v. Caldeira, 61 Haw. 285, 290 , 602 P.2d 930, 933 (1979), that "unless conceded by the 4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER defendant, the government is required to show, in [repeat offender] proceedings [under Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS) § 706-606.5 (1976)], that he was represented by counsel, or had waived such representation, at the time of his prior conviction." Livingston asserted that there was insuffi

2026Second, Livingston challenged the imposition of mandatory minimum sentencing as a repeat offender, arguing his sentence violated the requirement in State v. Caldeira, 61 Haw. 285, 290 , 602 P.2d 930, 933 (1979), that "unless conceded by the 4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER defendant, the government is required to show, in [repeat offender] proceedings [under Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS) § 706-606.5 (1976)], that he was represented by counsel, or had waived such representation, at the time of his prior conviction." Livingston asserted that there was insuffi

2026P'ship, 119 Hawaiʻi 352, 373, 198 P.3d 615, 636 (2008) ("As a general rule, if a party does not raise an argument at trial, that argument will be deemed to have been waived on appeal; this 3 Rahimi held that a federal statute prohibiting an individual subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a firearm is consistent with the Second Amendment, if the order includes a finding that the individual represented a credible threat to the physical safety of an intimate partner. 602 U.S. at 690. 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER rule applies in b

2026P'ship, 119 Hawaiʻi 352, 373, 198 P.3d 615, 636 (2008) ("As a general rule, if a party does not raise an argument at trial, that argument will be deemed to have been waived on appeal; this 3 Rahimi held that a federal statute prohibiting an individual subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a firearm is consistent with the Second Amendment, if the order includes a finding that the individual represented a credible threat to the physical safety of an intimate partner. 602 U.S. at 690. 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER rule applies in b

2025See Visintin, 143 Hawaiʻi at 161, 426 P.3d at 385 (finding that defendant "raised the issue of speedy trial as soon as was practicable under the circumstances" where defendant filed a 14 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds within two weeks of his arraignment).

2025"The burden of establishing abuse of discretion in denying a HRCP Rule 60(b) 3 As part of her September 19, 2019 affidavit in opposition to the motion to extend, Linda submitted a copy of a January 20, 2011 dated bankruptcy discharge she received from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Utah. 4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER motion is on the appellant, and a strong showing is required to establish it." Id. at 162, 528 P.3d at 235 (cleaned up).

2025But "under HRCP Rule 60(b)(4), an order is void only if the court that rendered it lacked jurisdiction of either the subject matter or the parties or otherwise acted in a manner inconsistent with due process of law." Id. (cleaned up).

2025This court rejected a nearly identical argument (concerning the tolling of probation) in State v. Wilbur-Delima, 154 Hawai i 496, 502, 555 P.3d 660, 666 (App. 2024); see also State v. Holland-Dornath, CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2024 WL 3936732 , *2 (App. Aug. 26, 2024) (SDO) (following Wilbur-Delima).3 Based on the reasoning set forth in Wilbur-Delima, we conclude that a 3 Frederico notes that the arguments on the tolling issue raised in this case were previously made by his counsel (the Office of the Public Defender) in Holland-Dornath. 3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORT

2025See id. at 328, 489 P.3d at 432 ("[A] defendant may counter this inference of possession at the time of filing with evidence setting forth 'specific facts showing that there is a genuine 6 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER issue' as to whether the plaintiff actually possessed the subject note at the time it filed suit.") (quoting Hawaiʻi Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56(e)).

2025See Weinberg v. Mauch, 78 Hawai#i 40, 50, 890 P.2d 277, 287 (1995).

2025Agreement Dated July 17, 1984, 147 Hawaiʻi 456, 467, 465 P.3d 903, 914 (2020). "[W]hen the lower court has failed to issue the requisite findings of fact to enable meaningful appellate review, it is not the function of the appellate court to conduct its own evidentiary 3 The Probate Court did not specify what extrinsic evidence, if any, it relied upon to discern Lucas' intent, and whether, notwithstanding the lack of a court order establishing paternity, the genetic evidence that Casey and Alanna are the biological children of Trip establishes that they are "lawful issue" pursuant to Hawaii Re

2025Agreement Dated July 17, 1984, 147 Hawaiʻi 456, 467, 465 P.3d 903, 914 (2020). "[W]hen the lower court has failed to issue the requisite findings of fact to enable meaningful appellate review, it is not the function of the appellate court to conduct its own evidentiary 3 The Probate Court did not specify what extrinsic evidence, if any, it relied upon to discern Lucas' intent, and whether, notwithstanding the lack of a court order establishing paternity, the genetic evidence that Casey and Alanna are the biological children of Trip establishes that they are "lawful issue" pursuant to Hawaii Re

2024See Kawashima v. State, 140 Hawai#i 139, 152-53, 398 P.3d 728, 741-42 (2017).

2024Under the circumstances, we consider the failure to comply with HFCR Rule 24(c) "a procedural blunder of no real significance." Labayog v. Labayog, 83 Hawai#i 412, 419, 927 P.2d 420, 427 (App. 1996) (citing 7C Charles A. Wright, Arthur R.

2024HRS § 91–1 (Supp. 2023) defines a "contested case" as "a proceeding in which the legal rights, duties, or privileges of specific parties are required by law to be determined after an opportunity for agency hearing." HRS § 91–1 defines an "agency -10- NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER hearing" as "such hearing held by an agency immediately prior to a judicial review of a contested case as provided in section 91–14."5 "Thus, '[a] contested case is an agency hearing that 1) is required by law and 2) determines the rights, duties, or privileges of specific parties.

2024To satisfy the second component of the Tachibana colloquy, it is "suggested that the trial court engage in a verbal exchange with the defendant at least twice": (1) "after the court informs the defendant of the right to testify and of the right not to testify and the protections associated with these rights"; and (2) "after the court indicates to the defendant its understanding that the defendant does not intend to testify[,]" which includes "responses as to whether the 8 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER defendant intends to not testify, whether anyone is forc

2024See Uyemura, 57 Haw. at 108–09, 551 P.2d at 176 ("[W]here the wrongful act of the 6 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER defendant has involved the plaintiff in litigation with others, . . . such expenses, including attorneys' fees, should be treated as the legal consequences of the original wrongful act, and may be recovered as damages.").

2024See Uyemura, 57 Haw. at 108–09, 551 P.2d at 176 ("[W]here the wrongful act of the 6 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER defendant has involved the plaintiff in litigation with others, . . . such expenses, including attorneys' fees, should be treated as the legal consequences of the original wrongful act, and may be recovered as damages.").

2023The State does not challenge Nguyen's contention on appeal that Nguyen was in "custody." In State v. Skapinok, 151 Hawai#i 170, 185, 510 P.3d 599, 614 (2022), the Hawai#i Supreme Court held that "all of the [MRO] questions are interrogation" because "[a]lthough the 'incriminating inference' may be indirect, the questions nevertheless adduce evidence to establish that intoxication caused any poor performance on the SFST."5 Thus, Miranda 5 In Skapinok, the officer asked the following MRO questions: (continued...) 6 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER warnings were

2023See id.

2023App. Apr. 26, 2019) (SDO) ("Waiver of an 22 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER issue not raised at the administrative level applies even to constitutional issues when appellant is not challenging the constitutionality of a statute or other rule."); see also HOH Corp., 69 Haw. at 143 , 736 P.2d at 1276 ("When determination of the constitutional issue depends on factual determinations, they should be made first by the administrative officials who are especially equipped to inquire, in the first instance, into the facts." (quoting B.

2023App. Apr. 26, 2019) (SDO) ("Waiver of an 22 FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER issue not raised at the administrative level applies even to constitutional issues when appellant is not challenging the constitutionality of a statute or other rule."); see also HOH Corp., 69 Haw. at 143 , 736 P.2d at 1276 ("When determination of the constitutional issue depends on factual determinations, they should be made first by the administrative officials who are especially equipped to inquire, in the first instance, into the facts." (quoting B.

2023See Hirata, 152 Hawai‘i at 34, 520 P.3d at 232 .