Jones v. State

• Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
• Decided: April 27, 2026
• Docket: CAAP-24-0000297
• Status: Published

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 27-APR-2026 08:02 AM Dkt. 48 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

WILLIE J. JONES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF HAWAI I, Respondent-Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CASE NO. 1CPN-XX-XXXXXXX)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and Guidry, JJ.) Petitioner-Appellant Willie J. Jones (Jones), self-

represented, appeals from the April 4, 2024 Order Denying

[Jones's] Petition for Post-Conviction Relief, Filed November 17,

2022, Without a Hearing (Order Denying Sixth Rule 40 Petition)

entered by the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit

Court).1

Jones's opening brief does not comply with Hawai i

Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 28(b)(4) in numerous ways,

including a failure to include a statement of points of error on

appeal. Nonetheless, we address the argument raised in Jones's

appeal to the extent discernible. See State v. Croke,

1 The Honorable Rowena A. Somerville presided. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2024 WL 304009 *2 n.6 (Haw. App. Jan. 26, 2024)

(SDO). It appears that Jones contends that his extended term

sentence was unconstitutional pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey,

530 U.S. 466 (2000), because a judge, not a jury, found the facts

necessary to support the imposition of an extended term.

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs

submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to

the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we resolve Jones's

appeal as follows:

First, we note that this argument appears to have been

raised and ruled on in conjunction with Jones's prior Hawai i

Rules of Penal Procedure Rule 40 petitions.

Moreover, this argument has no merit. The Hawai i

Supreme Court has held that Apprendi does not apply retroactively

to cases that became final before the United States Supreme Court

announced its rule in Apprendi in 2000. See State v. Gomes, 107

Hawai i 308, 314, 113 P.3d 184, 190 (2005) ("In the present

matter, Gomes was sentenced and his direct appeal became final

years before the announcement of the Supreme Court's rule in

Apprendi. Therefore, by any construction of Apprendi, Gomes's

sentence could not have been illegal at the time the circuit

court imposed it.").

Here, Jones was sentenced and his direct appeal became

final in 1997, years before the announcement of the rule in

Apprendi.

2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Accordingly, the Circuit Court's April 4, 2024 Order

Denying Sixth Rule 40 Petition is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, April 27, 2026.

On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard Presiding Judge Willie J. Jones, Petitioner-Appellant, pro se /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth Associate Judge Loren J. Thomas, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry City & County of Honolulu, Associate Judge for Respondent-Appellee