ICA dismisses Rule 40 Petition for Lack of Appellate Jurisdiction

On June 16, 2011, the Hawai'i Intermediate Court of Appeals rendered its decision in Abordo v. State, No. 30254 (Summary Disposition Order- unpublished, panel: Nakamura, CJ, Fujise and Leonard, JJ). Appeal from the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, Hon. K. O. Lee, presiding. On the briefs were Edmund Abordo appearing pro se and Lisa Itomura, Esq. and Diane K. Tiara, Esq. for Appellee-State.

After conviction, Defendant filed a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief pursuant to Rule 40 of the Hawai'i Rules of Penal Procedure. The case was transferred to the Court Clerk, who assigned the case a new civil designation. Defendant subsequently filed a motion requesting relief in this civil case, but the motion apparently was treated as a new claim and assigned its own civil case number. This motion was denied in the second civil cause, and Defendant appealed.

The ICA noted that the order denying relief was filed in the second case, which still had pending claims to adjudicate. Thus, “there was no final, appealable order” stemming from the first case, and the ICA lacked appellate jurisdiction. Appeal dismissed.