State v. Boots
This text of State v. Boots (State v. Boots) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hawaii Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-30128 20-DEC-2013 07:56 AM
SCWC-30128
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
RAYMOND JOHN BOOTS, JR., Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.
CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (ICA NO. 30128; FC-CR NO. 08-1-0182)
ORDER ACCEPTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND AFFIRMING THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS’ JUDGMENT ON APPEAL (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ., and Circuit Judge Ochiai, in place of Acoba, J., recused)
On November 14, 2013, petitioner/defendant-appellant
Raymond John Boots, Jr. (Raymond) filed an application for writ
of certiorari seeking review of the September 16, 2013 judgment
of the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA), including the ICA’s
August 2, 2013 Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration, wherein
the ICA denied Raymond’s request that it preserve his ability to
raise an Hawai#i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 40 petition
with regard to his ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
Upon review of the application for writ to certiorari
filed on November 14, 2013, by Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant
Raymond John Boots, Jr., IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the application for a writ of
certiorari is accepted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the September 16, 2013
judgment of the Intermediate Court of Appeals is affirmed in all
respects, except that the petitioner may file an HRPP Rule 40
petition challenging the Family Court of the Third Circuit’s
October 27, 2009 amended judgment on the grounds that he received
ineffective assistance of counsel because (1) trial counsel did
not cross-examine the complaining witness about her mental state
on the day of the incident or because (2) trial counsel failed to
call his other daughter to testify as a percipient witness.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, December 20, 2013.
Robert K. Allen /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald for petitioner
Shaunda A. K. Liu /s/ Paula A. Nakayama for respondent /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
/s/ Dean E. Ochiai
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State v. Boots, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-boots-haw-2013.