State v. Holland-Dornath

554 P.3d 565, 154 Haw. 420

• Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
• Decided: August 26, 2024
• Docket: CAAP-21-0000442
• Status: Published

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 26-AUG-2024 07:51 AM Dkt. 67 SO CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAKOTA HOLLAND-DORNATH, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CASE NO. 1PC151001241)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Hiraoka and Wadsworth, JJ.)

Defendant-Appellant Dakota Holland-Dornath (Holland-

Dornath) appeals from the (1) May 5, 2021 Order of Resentencing,

Revocation of Probation, Notice of Entry and (2) June 7, 2021

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Re: Motion for

Revocation of Probation, Filed on February 11, 2021 (Order re

Motion for Revocation), entered by the Circuit Court of the First

Circuit (Circuit Court).1

Holland-Dornath raises a single point of error on

appeal, contending that the Circuit Court erred in granting

Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawaii's [(State's)] February 11,

2021 Motion for Revocation of Probation (Motion for Revocation)

because none of the post-resentencing motions (except one filed

on February 21, 2020) were tolling motions, and therefore

1 The Honorable Matthew J. Viola presided. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Holland-Dornath's probationary term had expired before the Motion

for Revocation was filed.

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 by the parties, we

resolve Holland-Dornath's point of error as follows:

Holland-Dornath argues that HRS §§ 706-625(1), (4)

(2014) and 706-627(1) (2014), read in pari materia, exclude

"motions to modify" from motions that toll a defendant's probation. HRS § 706-625 provides, in pertinent part: § 706-625 Revocation, modification of probation conditions. (1) The court, on application of a probation officer, the prosecuting attorney, the defendant, or on its own motion, after a hearing, may revoke probation except as provided in subsection (7), reduce or enlarge the conditions of a sentence of probation, pursuant to the provisions applicable to the initial setting of the conditions and the provisions of section 706-627. . . . .

(4) The court may modify the requirements imposed on the defendant or impose further requirements, if it finds that such action will assist the defendant in leading a law-abiding life.

HRS § 706-627 provides: § 706-627 Tolling of probation. (1) Upon the filing of a motion to revoke a probation or a motion to enlarge the conditions imposed thereby, the period of probation shall be tolled pending the hearing upon the motion and the decision of the court. The period of tolling shall be computed from the filing date of the motion through and including the filing date of the written decision of the court concerning the motion for purposes of computation of the remaining period of probation, if any. In the event the court fails to file a written decision upon the motion, the period shall be computed by reference to the date the court makes a decision upon the motion in open court. During the period of tolling of the probation, the defendant shall remain subject to all terms and conditions of the probation except as otherwise provided by this chapter.

(2) In the event the court, following hearing, refuses to revoke the probation or grant the requested enlargement of conditions thereof because the defendant's failure to comply therewith was excusable, the defendant may

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

be granted the period of tolling of the probation for purposes of computation of the remaining probation, if any.

This court recently rejected this argument in State v.

Wilbur-Delima, CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2024 WL 3563240, *1 (Haw. App.

July 29, 2024). Based on the reasoning set forth in Wilbur-

Delima, we reiterate that a motion to modify probation that seeks

to enlarge a condition of probation is a tolling motion.

Like the appellant in Wilbur-Delima, Holland-Dornath

had entered the HOPE Probation Program. Although the subject

motions to modify Holland-Dornath's probation were not entitled as motions to enlarge sentence, in each instance, the State moved

for an enlarged probation condition, i.e., more jail time was

sought; Holland-Dornath stipulated to the violations of one or

more conditions of probation, the motions were granted, and

Holland-Dornath was ordered to serve additional jail time.

Accordingly, the Circuit Court did not err in treating the

State's motions to modify as tolling motions.

Based on the foregoing, and this court's Opinion in

Wilbur-Delima, the Circuit Court's May 5, 2021 Order of Resentencing and the June 7, 2021 Order re Motion for Revocation

are affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, August 26, 2024.

On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard Acting Chief Judge Phyllis J. Hironaka, Deputy Public Defender, /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka for Defendant-Appellant. Associate Judge

Donn Fudo, /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Associate Judge City and County of Honolulu, for Plaintiff-Appellee.