***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX 31-MAR-2025 09:43 AM Dkt. 47 SO
SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII ________________________________________________________________
WALTER N. GUITY, Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Respondent/Respondent-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________
CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX; CIVIL NO. 1CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, and Devens, JJ., and Circuit Judge Cataldo in place of Ginoza, J., recused)
Petitioner Walter N. Guity filed a petition in the
Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit court) under Hawai‘i
Revised Statutes (HRS) chapter 661B (2016) for redress for
wrongful conviction and imprisonment related to two vacated
convictions of sexual assault. The circuit court, 1 upon a motion
from the Respondent State of Hawai‘i, dismissed Guity’s petition
as to both convictions. Guity appealed, and the Intermediate
1 The Honorable Jeffrey P. Crabtree presided. ***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***
Court of Appeals (ICA) held that “Guity’s petition satisfied the
pleading requirements of HRS § 661B-1(b)(1) as to one of his
convictions, but not the other.” Guity v. State, 153 Hawai‘i
368, 370, 538 P.3d 780, 782 (App. 2023) (Guity III). At the
time of Guity’s application for writ of certiorari, this court
had not yet adjudicated the pleading requirements of HRS
§ 661B-1(b)(1) (2016). Having recently done so in Jardine v.
State, 155 Hawai‘i 60, 556 P.3d 406 (2024), we now affirm the
ICA’s holding in the instant case.
On May 18, 2011, Guity entered a global plea agreement
in the circuit court related to criminal charges in two separate
cases, one in the family district court (family court case) and
the other in the circuit court (circuit court case). The
charges in the two cases arose from separate incidents of
alleged sexual assault. The facts in the underlying criminal
cases are recited in State v. Guity, 139 Hawai‘i 272, 398 P.3d
901, 2016 WL 6427681, at *2 (App. Oct. 31, 2016) (mem. op.)
(Guity I) and State v. Guity, 144 Hawai‘i 557, 445 P.3d 138
(2019) (Guity II).
As part of the plea agreement, Guity pleaded guilty to
second-degree sexual assault in the circuit court case and
third-degree sexual assault in the family court case. Guity II,
144 Hawai‘i at 559, 445 P.3d at 140. The complaining witness in
the family court case was Guity’s spouse. Id. at 558-59, 2 ***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***
445 P.3d at 139-40. At the time of Guity’s guilty plea, an
offense against one’s spouse was expressly excluded from the
offense of third-degree sexual assault. See HRS § 707-732(1)(f)
(Supp. 2009); HRS § 707-700 (Supp. 2009). Thus, it was legally
impossible for Guity to have committed the offense to which he
pleaded guilty in the family court case. Guity I, 2016 WL
6427681, at *8.
Subsequent to his plea, Guity became dissatisfied with
his attorney, who ultimately withdrew as Guity’s counsel. Guity
II, 144 Hawai‘i at 559, 445 P.3d at 140. Proceeding pro se
before the circuit court, Guity orally moved to withdraw his
guilty pleas in both cases. Id. The circuit court denied
Guity’s motion and, pursuant to the plea agreement, sentenced
him to concurrent terms of twelve months of imprisonment in the
family court case and eighteen months of imprisonment in the
circuit court case. Id. at 560, 445 P.3d at 141.
Guity appealed his convictions. This court held that
Guity should have been allowed to withdraw his guilty plea in
the family court case because “the Circuit Court definitively
knew that it was legally impossible for Guity to have committed”
the offense of third-degree sexual assault against his spouse.
Id. at 562-63, 445 P.3d at 143-44 (citation omitted). Further,
because the pleas in both cases were part of a single agreement,
we held that Guity “was entitled to withdraw his plea in the
3 ***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***
circuit court case.” Id. at 563, 445 P.3d at 144. Accordingly,
we remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings with
instructions to accept Guity’s withdrawal of both pleas. Id. at
563-64, 445 P.3d at 144-45. By that time, however, Guity had
already served the entirety of his concurrent sentence. Both
cases were ultimately dismissed on remand. Guity III, 153
Hawai‘i at 370-71, 538 P.3d at 782-83.
On May 14, 2021, Guity filed a civil petition in
circuit court seeking redress for wrongful conviction and
imprisonment under HRS chapter 661B. The State moved to dismiss
his petition on the grounds that Guity failed to meet the
pleading requirements of HRS § 661B-1(b)(1), which require a
petitioner to allege that they were “actually innocent” of the
crimes for which they were convicted. 2 The circuit court granted
the State’s motion to dismiss. Guity appealed.
2 HRS § 661B-1(b) provides:
(b) To present an actionable claim against the State for wrongful conviction and imprisonment, the petitioner shall allege that the petitioner was convicted of one or more crimes under the laws of the State, was subsequently sentenced to a term of imprisonment, and has served all or any part of the sentence and either that: (1) The judgment of conviction was reversed or vacated because the petitioner was actually innocent of the crimes for which the petitioner was convicted, and the court decision so states; or (2) The petitioner was pardoned because the petitioner was actually innocent of the crimes for which the petitioner was convicted and the pardon so states.
(Emphasis added).
4 ***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***
On appeal, the ICA held that Guity’s petition
satisfied the pleading requirements as to the family court case
but not the circuit court case. Guity III, 153 Hawai‘i at 376-
77, 538 P.3d at 788-89. Reviewing the appellate court decisions
that had vacated Guity’s family court conviction, the ICA
acknowledged that Guity I stated “there was no factual basis
(because the complaining witness was Guity’s wife) or legal
basis (because the definition of ‘sexual contact’ excluded
contact with the defendant’s spouse) for Guity’s conviction.”
Id. at 376, 538 P.3d at 788. Further, Guity II “noted it was
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX 31-MAR-2025 09:43 AM Dkt. 47 SO
SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAII ________________________________________________________________
WALTER N. GUITY, Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Respondent/Respondent-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________
CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX; CIVIL NO. 1CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, and Devens, JJ., and Circuit Judge Cataldo in place of Ginoza, J., recused)
Petitioner Walter N. Guity filed a petition in the
Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit court) under Hawai‘i
Revised Statutes (HRS) chapter 661B (2016) for redress for
wrongful conviction and imprisonment related to two vacated
convictions of sexual assault. The circuit court, 1 upon a motion
from the Respondent State of Hawai‘i, dismissed Guity’s petition
as to both convictions. Guity appealed, and the Intermediate
1 The Honorable Jeffrey P. Crabtree presided. ***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***
Court of Appeals (ICA) held that “Guity’s petition satisfied the
pleading requirements of HRS § 661B-1(b)(1) as to one of his
convictions, but not the other.” Guity v. State, 153 Hawai‘i
368, 370, 538 P.3d 780, 782 (App. 2023) (Guity III). At the
time of Guity’s application for writ of certiorari, this court
had not yet adjudicated the pleading requirements of HRS
§ 661B-1(b)(1) (2016). Having recently done so in Jardine v.
State, 155 Hawai‘i 60, 556 P.3d 406 (2024), we now affirm the
ICA’s holding in the instant case.
On May 18, 2011, Guity entered a global plea agreement
in the circuit court related to criminal charges in two separate
cases, one in the family district court (family court case) and
the other in the circuit court (circuit court case). The
charges in the two cases arose from separate incidents of
alleged sexual assault. The facts in the underlying criminal
cases are recited in State v. Guity, 139 Hawai‘i 272, 398 P.3d
901, 2016 WL 6427681, at *2 (App. Oct. 31, 2016) (mem. op.)
(Guity I) and State v. Guity, 144 Hawai‘i 557, 445 P.3d 138
(2019) (Guity II).
As part of the plea agreement, Guity pleaded guilty to
second-degree sexual assault in the circuit court case and
third-degree sexual assault in the family court case. Guity II,
144 Hawai‘i at 559, 445 P.3d at 140. The complaining witness in
the family court case was Guity’s spouse. Id. at 558-59, 2 ***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***
445 P.3d at 139-40. At the time of Guity’s guilty plea, an
offense against one’s spouse was expressly excluded from the
offense of third-degree sexual assault. See HRS § 707-732(1)(f)
(Supp. 2009); HRS § 707-700 (Supp. 2009). Thus, it was legally
impossible for Guity to have committed the offense to which he
pleaded guilty in the family court case. Guity I, 2016 WL
6427681, at *8.
Subsequent to his plea, Guity became dissatisfied with
his attorney, who ultimately withdrew as Guity’s counsel. Guity
II, 144 Hawai‘i at 559, 445 P.3d at 140. Proceeding pro se
before the circuit court, Guity orally moved to withdraw his
guilty pleas in both cases. Id. The circuit court denied
Guity’s motion and, pursuant to the plea agreement, sentenced
him to concurrent terms of twelve months of imprisonment in the
family court case and eighteen months of imprisonment in the
circuit court case. Id. at 560, 445 P.3d at 141.
Guity appealed his convictions. This court held that
Guity should have been allowed to withdraw his guilty plea in
the family court case because “the Circuit Court definitively
knew that it was legally impossible for Guity to have committed”
the offense of third-degree sexual assault against his spouse.
Id. at 562-63, 445 P.3d at 143-44 (citation omitted). Further,
because the pleas in both cases were part of a single agreement,
we held that Guity “was entitled to withdraw his plea in the
3 ***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***
circuit court case.” Id. at 563, 445 P.3d at 144. Accordingly,
we remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings with
instructions to accept Guity’s withdrawal of both pleas. Id. at
563-64, 445 P.3d at 144-45. By that time, however, Guity had
already served the entirety of his concurrent sentence. Both
cases were ultimately dismissed on remand. Guity III, 153
Hawai‘i at 370-71, 538 P.3d at 782-83.
On May 14, 2021, Guity filed a civil petition in
circuit court seeking redress for wrongful conviction and
imprisonment under HRS chapter 661B. The State moved to dismiss
his petition on the grounds that Guity failed to meet the
pleading requirements of HRS § 661B-1(b)(1), which require a
petitioner to allege that they were “actually innocent” of the
crimes for which they were convicted. 2 The circuit court granted
the State’s motion to dismiss. Guity appealed.
2 HRS § 661B-1(b) provides:
(b) To present an actionable claim against the State for wrongful conviction and imprisonment, the petitioner shall allege that the petitioner was convicted of one or more crimes under the laws of the State, was subsequently sentenced to a term of imprisonment, and has served all or any part of the sentence and either that: (1) The judgment of conviction was reversed or vacated because the petitioner was actually innocent of the crimes for which the petitioner was convicted, and the court decision so states; or (2) The petitioner was pardoned because the petitioner was actually innocent of the crimes for which the petitioner was convicted and the pardon so states.
(Emphasis added).
4 ***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***
On appeal, the ICA held that Guity’s petition
satisfied the pleading requirements as to the family court case
but not the circuit court case. Guity III, 153 Hawai‘i at 376-
77, 538 P.3d at 788-89. Reviewing the appellate court decisions
that had vacated Guity’s family court conviction, the ICA
acknowledged that Guity I stated “there was no factual basis
(because the complaining witness was Guity’s wife) or legal
basis (because the definition of ‘sexual contact’ excluded
contact with the defendant’s spouse) for Guity’s conviction.”
Id. at 376, 538 P.3d at 788. Further, Guity II “noted it was
legally impossible for Guity to have committed the offense to
which he pleaded guilty in the Family Court Case.” Id. Read in
conjunction with the requirements of HRS § 661B-1(b)(1), the ICA
held that these pronouncements were equivalent to a statement
that Guity was “actually innocent.” Id.
The same was not true in the circuit court case, where
the complainant was someone other than Guity’s spouse. There,
Guity’s conviction was vacated on a purely procedural issue: he
should have been able to withdraw his guilty plea. Guity II,
144 Hawai‘i at 563, 445 P.3d at 144. On remand, the circuit
court case was dismissed with prejudice because of defects in
the indictment and the State’s lack of contact with the
complainant. Guity III, 153 Hawai‘i at 377, 538 P.3d at 789.
Accordingly, the ICA concluded that nothing in the supreme
5 ***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***
court’s opinion or circuit court’s subsequent order could be
reasonably interpreted as a statement of Guity’s actual
innocence. Id. Thus, neither of those decisions could “be
relied on as the decision stating that Guity was actually
innocent for the purposes of HRS § 661B-1(b)(1).” Id.
Guity filed the instant application for certiorari on
December 8, 2023. 3 At the time of his filing, this court had not
yet adjudicated the meaning of “actual innocence.” We have now
done so through Jardine v. State, 155 Hawai‘i 60, 556 P.3d 406
(2024). In Jardine, we wrote:
We agree with the ICA’s reasoning in Guity v. State, 153 Hawai‘i 368, 376, 538 P.3d 780, 788 (App. 2023) that the words “actual innocence” need not appear in the order reversing or vacating a petitioner’s conviction for a petitioner to survive summary judgment as to their eligibility for relief under HRS § 661B-1(b)(1).
Id. at 70, 556 P.3d at 416.
We further held that under HRS § 661B-1, “a petitioner
must show that their conviction was vacated based on evidence of
3 Guity filed an initial application for writ of certiorari on November 13, 2023, before the ICA had entered its judgment on appeal. We dismissed that application without prejudice to re-filing pursuant to Hawai‘i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 40.1 (eff. 2023). We also note that Guity’s instant application is not compliant with the content requirements of HRAP Rule 40.1(d), and a strict application of that rule would require that Guity’s application be disregarded. However, “we believe that pro se litigants should not automatically have their access to appellate review in this court foreclosed because of failure to conform to requirements of the procedural rules.” Erum v. Llego, 147 Hawai‘i 368, 381, 465 P.3d 815, 828 (2020). Further, this court “has long adhered to the policy of affording litigants the opportunity to be heard on the merits whenever possible[,]” and is “obligated to interpret applications for certiorari liberally in order to facilitate access to justice.” Id. at 380- 81, 465 P.3d 827-28 (citing Morgan v. Plan. Dep’t, 104 Hawai‘i 173, 180-81, 86 P.3d 982, 989-90 (2004); Waltrip v. TS Enters., Inc., 140 Hawai‘i 226, 240, 398 P.3d 815, 829 (2016)).
6 ***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***
innocence, rather than a technical or procedural issue.” Id. at
73, 556 P.3d at 419.
Consistent with the discussion above and our opinion
in Jardine, we conclude that Guity’s petition met the pleading
requirements of HRS § 661B-1(b)(1) with respect to the family
court case but failed to do so with respect to the circuit court
case. We therefore affirm the ICA’s November 14, 2023 Judgment
on Appeal and remand the case to the circuit court for further
proceedings consistent with this order.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, March 31, 2025.
Walter N. Guity /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald self-represented petitioner/ plaintiff-appellant /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
Ewan C. Rayner /s/ Todd W. Eddins Deputy Solicitor General Amanda J. Weston /s/ Vladimir P. Devens Lee Ying Kwok Deputy Attorneys General /s/ Lisa W. Cataldo for respondent/defendant- appellee