Nottingham v. State

• Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
• Decided: April 16, 2026
• Docket: CAAP-24-0000099
• Status: Published

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 16-APR-2026 07:57 AM Dkt. 64 SO NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

GREGORY S. NOTTINGHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF HAWAI I, Respondent-Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CASE NOS. 1CPN-XX-XXXXXXX and 1CPN-XX-XXXXXXX)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and Guidry, JJ.) Petitioner-Appellant Gregory S. Nottingham (Nottingham)

appeals from the January 31, 2024 Findings of Fact, Conclusions

of Law, and Order Denying Petitions for Post-Conviction Relief

Pursuant to [Hawai i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRPP)] Rule 40

Without a Hearing (Order Denying Petitions), entered by the

Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court).1

Nottingham fails to present points of error on appeal

in compliance with Hawai i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP)

Rule 28(b)(4). Nonetheless, we address the arguments raised in

Nottingham's appeal to the extent we can discern them. See State

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

26, 2024) (SDO).

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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

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

Nottingham's appeal as follows:

Nottingham argues that the Circuit Court erred in

denying him relief pursuant to HRPP Rule 40 based on his

assertion of judicial misconduct at a February 1, 2018 pre-trial

hearing on a Motion for Supervised Release filed in 1CPC-17-

0001428. Nottingham alleges that the judge in 1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX

stated that Nottingham "stole a computer out of a police car,"

that Nottingham was "mentally ill," and that the judge wanted "to

know who is going to manage your meds" before granting

Nottingham's request for supervised release.

In the Order Denying Petitions, the Circuit Court

found, inter alia, that the transcript contained no evidence of

the judge referring to Nottingham as "mentally ill." Rather, as

evidenced by the transcript of the February 1, 2018 hearing, in

light of Nottingham's request for supervised release and that

Nottingham was pending a mental health examination, the judge

sought information concerning his case manager, services, doctor,

and medical management, in order to evaluate the release

request.2 The Circuit Court further found that the judge stated

"the allegations are that [Nottingham] went into a police car and

took [a] laptop from a police car[.]" The transcript of the

February 1, 2018 hearing supports this finding. Nottingham

2 We note that Nottingham's request for supervised release was ultimately granted.

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

asserts that the transcript was "doctored," but provides no

citation to the record or other support for this assertion. 3 A

statement of the allegations included in a felony information is

not evidence of bias against a defendant. We conclude that

Nottingham's arguments concerning bias and judicial misconduct

are without merit.

Nottingham also contends, without argument or other

support whatsoever, that the statute of limitations has run for

both of his underlying offenses. We conclude that this

contention is waived. See HRAP Rule 28(b)(4)&(7).

For these reasons, the Circuit Court's January 31, 2024

Order Denying Petitions is affirmed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are

dismissed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, April 16, 2026.

On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard Presiding Judge Gregory S. Nottingham, 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

3 Moreover, Nottingham failed to raise this issue in the proceedings below and it is therefore waived.