MacDonald v. State

• Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
• Decided: October 17, 2025
• Docket: CAAP-23-0000371
• Status: Published

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 17-OCT-2025 08:17 AM Dkt. 51 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

CRAIG STEPHEN MACDONALD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Respondent-Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT (CASE NO. 3CPN-XX-XXXXXXX (3PC08100372K))

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, McCullen and Guidry, JJ.)

Petitioner-Appellant Craig Stephen MacDonald appeals

from the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit's May 30, 2023 Final

Judgment denying his Hawai‘i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP)

Rule 40 "Petition to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct [Judgment] or

to Release Petitioner from Custody" (Petition). 1 (Formatting

altered.)

1 The Honorable Jeffrey A. Hawk presided. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

On appeal, MacDonald contends the circuit court erred,

inter alia, by failing to notify his counsel of the April 26,

2023 status conference. 2

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs

submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to

the issues raised and the arguments advanced, we resolve the

points of error as discussed below and vacate and remand.

In 2022, MacDonald filed the HRPP Rule 40 Petition

underlying this appeal, his second petition. The Petition

asserted he was denied credit for time spent in custody and

three grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Determining that "one or more of [MacDonald's] claims

may not be patently frivolous[,]" the circuit court ordered the

State to respond and permitted MacDonald's counsel to reply.

The circuit court also set a status conference for March 29,

2023.

In compliance with the circuit court's order, the

State filed a response and MacDonald filed a reply. The State

also filed a supplemental response. However, MacDonald's

counsel failed to appear at the March status conference

purportedly due to a calendaring error.

2 MacDonald also contends the circuit court erred by failing to comply with HRPP Rule 40(e) and finding the issues raised were previously ruled upon, waived, or frivolous. Based on our decision below, we need not reach these contentions.

2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Apparently, the circuit court held an additional

status conference on April 26, 2023. MacDonald's counsel again

did not appear. The record does not indicate MacDonald was

given notice of the April status conference. At the conclusion

of the April status conference, the circuit court denied the

Petition and later entered its findings, conclusions, and order

denying the Petition (Denial Order).

The Denial Order (drafted by the State) denied the

Petition citing counsel's failure to appear at the status

conferences as well as on substantive legal grounds. In the

Denial Order, the circuit court recounted the history of the

status conferences and implied the denial was the result of the

second non-appearance, as follows:

WHEREAS, a status conference was held on March 29, 2023, before the Honorable Jeffrey A. Hawk, Judge of the above-entitled court. [The State] was present for the status conference, but [MacDonald] and his counsel were not.

WHEREAS, a further status conference was held on April 26, 2023, before Judge Hawk. [The State] was present for the status conference, but [MacDonald] and his counsel were not.

ACCORDINGLY, at the conclusion of the status conference on April 26, 2023, Judge Hawk SUMMARILY DENIED the instant petition and instructed [the State] to prepare an appropriate order for the court.

(Emphases added.) The circuit court reiterated the non-

appearances in findings of fact 7 through 9, as follows:

3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

7) On March 29, 2023, a status conference was held before the Honorable Jeffrey A. Hawk, Presiding Judge. [The State] was present for the status conference, but [MacDonald] and his counsel were not;

8) A further status conference was held on April 26, 2023, before Judge Hawk. [The State] was present for the status conference, but [MacDonald] and his counsel were not;

9) [MacDonald's counsel] neither notified the Court nor [the State] regarding his availability or non- availability for the status hearings on March 29th and April 26th.

(Formatting altered.)

MacDonald timely appealed. On appeal, MacDonald

argues his right to due process was violated when the circuit

court failed to notify him of the April status conference.

"The basic elements of procedural due process are

notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and

in a meaningful manner." Mauna Kea Anaina Hou v. Bd. of Land &

Nat. Res., 136 Hawai‘i 376, 389, 363 P.3d 224, 237 (2015).

Though MacDonald's counsel missed the March status

conference through his own fault, the underlying record contains

no docket entries regarding the April status conference. The

record also contains no entries indicating MacDonald was given

notice of the April status conference.

Because the record does not show MacDonald was given

notice of the April status conference, and the failure to appear

at the April status conference seemingly contributed to the

denial of the Petition, MacDonald's due process rights were

4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

violated. On remand, MacDonald should be placed in the position

he would have been in had the due process violation not

occurred. See State v. Pitts, 131 Hawai‘i 537, 544 n.6, 319 P.3d

456, 463 n.6 (2014) ("The remand we order seeks only to place

Pitts in the position he would have been in had the

constitutional violation never occurred.").

Based on the foregoing, we vacate the circuit court's

May 8, 2023 Denial Order and May 30, 2023 Final Judgment. We

remand this case to the circuit court for further proceedings

consistent with this summary disposition order.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, October 17, 2025.

On the briefs: /s/ Karen T. Nakasone Chief Judge Earle A. Partington, for Petitioner-Appellant. /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen Associate Judge Stephen L. Frye, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry County of Hawaiʻi, Associate Judge for Respondent-Appellee.