On June 21, 2011, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals issued its decision in Stanley v. State, CAAP-10-0000070 (Summary disposition order- unpublished, panel: Nakamura, CJ, Foley and Reifurth, JJ). This case was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, the Hon. Michael D. Wilson, presiding. On the briefs were Charles Anthony Stanley, pro se, and Delanie D. Prescott-Tate, Esq. for Appellee-State.
Defendant was convicted of robbery in the second degree and a direct appeal. After his criminal appeals were denied, he filed three petitions for post conviction relief that were also denied. The present case concerned the denial of the third petition, and alleged numerous procedural and substantive errors.
In denying Defendant’s appeal, the ICA held:
(1) The Complaint alleged the robbery occurred in the City and Count of Honolulu. Because “proof that an event occurred in the City and County of Honolulu or on the Island of Oahu is proof that it occurred within the first judicial circuit,” the circuit court did not lack subject matter jurisdiction.
(2) Because a charge of Robbery in the Second Degree which does not define the term "force" is readily comprehensible to a person of common understanding, the charge against Stanley was not insufficient, and the circuit court did not lack jurisdiction to enter a judgment of conviction for Robbery in the Second Degree.
(3) Because Stanley did not prove the existence of extraordinary circumstances to justify his failure to raise subject matter jurisdictional issues in his direct appeal or two prior HRPP Rule 40 petitions, relief is not available pursuant to HRPP Rule 40. Decision of the circuit court affirmed.
No comments:
Post a Comment