State v. Doolittle

• Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 10, 2026
• Docket: CAAP-24-0000633
• Status: Published

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 10-JUN-2026 07:50 AM Dkt. 82 SO NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

STATE OF HAWAI I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KAREN M. DOOLITTLE, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT NORTH & SOUTH KONA DIVISION (CASE NO. 3DTA-24-00768)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, Leonard and Guidry, JJ.) Defendant-Appellant Karen Doolittle (Doolittle) appeals

from the September 6, 2024 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law,

and Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Strike Proof of

Compliance Hearings (Compliance Hearings Order) entered by the

North and South Kona Division of the District Court of the Third

Circuit (District Court).1

Doolittle raises a single point of error on appeal,

contending that the District Court erred in entering the

Compliance Hearings Order.

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs

submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to

1 The Honorable Ann S. Datta presided. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we resolve

Doolittle's point of error as follows:

Doolittle pleaded no contest to, inter alia, Operating

a Vehicle under the Influence of an Intoxicant in violation of

Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 291E-61(a)(1) (2020) (OVUII).

She was sentenced to, inter alia, complete substance abuse

assessment by a certified substance abuse counselor and any

recommended treatment. A $250 Drug Demand Reduction Fee was

taken under advisement for one year and subject to be waived upon

successful completion of the required substance abuse assessment

and treatment. After the District Court imposed the sentence, at

the prosecution's request, the District Court set a proof-of-

compliance hearing. On the same day, July 15, 2024, the District

Court entered a Judgment and Notice of Entry of Judgment

(Judgment), which reflected, inter alia, that the $250 Drug

Demand Reduction Fee was taken under advisement. After Doolittle

moved to strike the proof-of-compliance hearing, the District

Court entered the Compliance Hearings Order. On November 21,

2024, after a hearing at which the District Court found that

Doolittle had fully complied with the substance abuse assessment

and treatment portion of the Judgment, the District Court entered

a Notice of Entry of Amended Judgment as to Drug Demand

Assessment Fee (Amended Judgment). The Amended Judgment states

that the court waives the Drug Demand Reduction Fee and will take

no further action.

Doolittle argues that the District Court erred when it

entered the Compliance Hearings Order because, inter alia, it

created a form of court supervision that is not found in the HRS

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

and the District Court is not authorized to use proof-of-

compliance hearings in OVUII cases as a form of probation to

monitor Doolittle's substance abuse treatment and rehabilitation.

This argument has merit. For the reasons set forth in

this court's recent Opinion in State v. Rivero-Garcia, No.

CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2026 WL 1582067 (Haw. App. June 3, 2026), we

conclude that the District Court exceeded its authority under HRS

§ 291E-61 by requiring Doolittle to appear for proof-of-

compliance hearings. Therefore, we conclude that the District

Court erred in entering the Compliance Hearings Order.

Accordingly, the District Court's September 6, 2024

Compliance Hearings Order is reversed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, June 10, 2026.

On the briefs: /s/ Karen T. Nakasone Chief Judge Benjamin Lowenthal, Deputy Public Defender, /s/ Katherine G. Leonard (on opening brief only) Associate Judge

and /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry Associate Judge Sara K. Haley, Deputy Public Defender, (on reply brief only)

for Defendant-Appellant.

Charles E. Murray, III, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, County of Hawai i, for Plaintiff-Appellee.