§641-12 From district courts. [(a)]
Appeals upon the record shall be allowed from all final decisions and final
judgments of district courts in all criminal matters. Such appeals may be made
to the intermediate appellate court, subject to chapter 602, whenever the party
appealing shall file notice of the party's appeal within thirty days, or such
other time as may be provided by the rules of the court.
[(b)] Within a reasonable time after an appeal
has been perfected from a decision of a district court to the appellate court
in a criminal matter, it shall be incumbent upon the district court to make a
return thereof, together with all papers and exhibits filed in such case.
[(c)] It shall be the duty of the clerk of the
supreme court to transmit within a reasonable time, to the district court from
whose decision the appeal was made, a statement showing the disposition of the
case. [L 1972, c 89, pt of §5; HRS §641-11.5; ren HRS §641-12; am L 1979, c
111, §6(3); gen ch 1985; am L 2004, c 202, §69; am L 2006, c 94, §1; am L 2010,
c 109, §1]
Rules of Court
Appeals, when taken, see HRAP rule 4.
Case Notes
The supreme court does not have jurisdiction to entertain
appeals from interlocutory orders of the district courts in criminal cases. 57
H. 133, 552 P.2d 75 (1976); 62 H. 297, 613 P.2d 362 (1980).
Where defendant's interlocutory appeal from district court's
denial of defendant's motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds did not
satisfy prerequisites of collateral order exception, supreme court did not have
to decide whether exception may apply to appeals from collateral orders of
district court. 82 H. 446, 923 P.2d 388 (1996).
Where sentence imposed was not the final sentence because the
district court expressly left open the possibility that its sentence of
defendant might include an order requiring defendant to pay restitution, and
the court did not finally decide whether it would order defendant to pay
restitution and, if so, in what amount, the judgment was not final and, because
it was not final, it was not appealable. 109 H. 435 (App.), 127 P.3d 95 (2005).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
31
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 1971–2026 · leading case:
State v. Nicol., 403 P.3d 259 (Haw. 2017).
State v. Nicol., 403 P.3d 259 (Haw. 2017).
· cites it 18× “” Nicol stated that this court had interpreted HRS § 641-12 (Supp. 2004) to grant district court defendants the right to appeal a district court order dismissing charges without prejudice.”
State v. Uchima., 464 P.3d 852 (Haw. 2020).
· cites it 8× “Notwithstanding HRS § 641-12’s seeming rigidity, our caselaw, as discussed supra, has allowed an appeal to proceed despite an untimely filing of a notice of appeal when defense counsel has inexcusably or ineffectively failed to perfect an appeal.”
State v. Hern, 323 P.3d 1241 (Haw. App. 2013).
· cites it 8× “The supreme court concluded that the District Court’s judgment dismissing Hern’s ease without prejudice was an appealable final judgment pursuant to HRS § 641-12 (Supp.2012). In support of its decision, the supreme court cited State v.”
Briones v. State, 848 P.2d 966 (Haw. 1993).
· cites it 4× “HRS § 641-12 (1985) and § 641-11 (Supp.1991), respectively.”
State v. Bohannon, 74 P.3d 980 (Haw. 2003).
· cites it 4× “HRS § 641-12 (1993), which pertains to appeals from the district courts, provides in pertinent part that "[a]ppeals upon the record shall be allowed from all final decisions and final judgments of the district courts in criminal matters.”
State v. Kilborn, 127 P.3d 95 (Haw. App. 2005).
· cites it 8× “HRS § 641-12 (1993) states, in relevant part: “From district courts.”
State v. Ontiveros, 923 P.2d 388 (Haw. 1996).
· cites it 6× “But, my position will be that if they choose to go forward over my objection today on the jurisdictional issue and I should prevail, my view of it is that the DUI case can never be charged since the law requires both charges to be tried together.”
State v. Heapy, 151 P.3d 764 (Haw. 2007).
· cites it 4× “” HRS § 641-12 (1993). "[T]he notice of appeal shall be filed in the .”
Dawson v. Lanham, 488 P.2d 329 (Haw. 1971).
· cites it 18× “" To resolve the question of the right of the State to appeal in criminal cases, *332 we rely on HRS § 641-12 which provides the following: "§ 641-12.”
State v. Valiani, 552 P.2d 75 (Haw. 1976).
· cites it 10× “Defendant has appealed to us from the order denying his motion with leave of the district court to file an interlocutory appeal under HRS § 641-12 (Supp. 1975) and Rule 43(b) of the District Court Rules of Penal Procedure (D.”
State v. Pia, 514 P.2d 580 (Haw. 1973).
· cites it 6× “The trial court thereupon dismissed count one of the information, from which ruling the State now appeals to this court under HRS § 641-12 (Supp. 1972). 5 The essence of the State’s argument in this case is that the defendants were charged with the commission of two acts, *17…”
State v. Graybeard, 6 P.3d 385 (Haw. App. 2000).
· cites it 4× “Such appeals may be made to the supreme court, subject to chapter 602 whenever the party appealing shall file notice of the party’s appeal within thirty days, or such other time as may be provided by the rules of the court.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 641-12(a) — 3 cases
State v. Uchima., 464 P.3d 852 (Haw. 2020).
“Notwithstanding HRS § 641-12’s seeming rigidity, our caselaw, as discussed supra, has allowed an appeal to proceed despite an untimely filing of a notice of appeal when defense counsel has inexcusably or ineffectively failed to perfect an appeal.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.