NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 10-JUN-2026 10:21 AM Dkt. 84 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI
STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CURRENA TOMIE MEYERS, Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT NORTH AND SOUTH KONA DIVISION (CASE NO. 3DTA-24-00558)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and Guidry, JJ.)
Defendant-Appellant Currena Tomie Meyers (Meyers)
appeals from the District Court of the Third Circuit's (district
court) September 20, 2024 "Findings Of Fact and Conclusions of
Law and Order Denying [Meyers'] Motion to Strike Proof of
Compliance Hearings Filed August 7, 2024" (Compliance Order). 1
1 The Honorable David R. Harada-Stone presided over entry of the Compliance Order, and the "Amended Judgment and Notice of Entry of Amended Judgment as to Drug Demand Reduction Fee" (Amended Judgment), filed on December 19, 2024. The Honorable Ann S. Datta presided over the entry of the
(continued . . .) NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
On July 10, 2024, Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawaiʻi
(State) filed an Amended Complaint charging Meyers with
operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant (OVUII)
as a highly intoxicated driver, in violation of Hawaii Revised
Statutes (HRS) § 291E-61(a)(1), (a)(3), and/or (b)(4) (2020 &
Supp. 2023) (Count 1), and operating an uninsured motor vehicle
in violation of HRS § 431:10C-104(a) (2019) (Count 2). Meyers
entered into a plea agreement with the State, whereby Meyers
pled no contest to the Count I charge of OVUII, but without the
highly intoxicated driver enhancement, and the State dismissed
Count 2 with prejudice. The district court accepted Meyers'
plea and entered its Judgment on August 5, 2024.
The Judgment ordered Meyers to complete a substance
abuse assessment, classes, and any recommended treatment, and to
pay, inter alia, a $250 drug demand reduction fee. The fee was
"taken under advisement for 1 year and subject to be waived on
condition of successful completion of required substance abuse
assessment, classes, and any recommended treatment." Meyers was
ordered to appear on October 17, 2024, for a proof of compliance
hearing.
2(. . . continued)
"Judgment and Notice of Entry of Judgment" (Judgment), filed on August 5, 2024.
2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
On August 7, 2024, Meyers moved to strike the
compliance hearing. The State opposed the motion to strike.
The district court denied the motion to strike, and entered the
Compliance Order; Meyers appealed from the Compliance Order,
creating this appeal.
At the October 17, 2024 proof of compliance hearing,
the district court found that Meyers had completed the substance
abuse assessment, but still needed to complete the outpatient
program and classes recommended by the assessment. The district
court continued the hearing to December 19, 2024 to allow Meyers
additional time to complete the classes. On November 29, 2024,
the Division of Driver Education (DDE) reported that Meyers had
completed the required substance abuse outpatient program and
classes. On December 19, 2024, following the continued hearing,
the district court entered its Amended Judgment. The Amended
Judgment stated that: Meyers "is in full compliance with
driver's education requirements as well as fines and fees.
Court waived the $250.00 drug demand reduction fee that was
previously taken under advisement. Court will take no further
action."
On appeal, Meyers raises a single point of error,
contending that the district court erred "by creating an
unauthorized probation-type sentencing disposition with endless
proof-of-compliance hearings to ensure [Meyers] followed through
3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
on the substance abuse assessment and classes." (Formatting
altered.) Upon careful review of the record, briefs, and
relevant legal authorities, and having given due consideration
to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties,
we address Meyers' point of error as follows.
We first address the matter of our jurisdiction over
the appeal. Ditto v. McCurdy, 103 Hawaiʻi 153, 157, 80 P.3d 974,
978 (2003). As in State v. Rivero-Garcia, No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX,
2026 WL 1582067, at *2-3 (Haw. App. June 3, 2026), we conclude
that we have jurisdiction, pursuant to the collateral order
doctrine, over the district court's Compliance Order. Here, the
Compliance Order "fully dispose[d] of the question at issue,"
State v. Baranco, 77 Hawaiʻi 351, 353-54, 884 P.2d 729, 731-32
(1994), of whether the district court was authorized to order
compliance review hearings under HRS § 291E-61(b) (2020), which
states that "[a] person committing the offense of [OVUII] shall
be sentenced without possibility of probation or suspension of
sentence[.]" The Compliance Order also "resolve[d] an issue
completely collateral to the merits of the case," i.e., Meyers'
conviction and sentencing. Baranco, 77 Hawaiʻi at 354, 884 P.3d
at 732. And the Compliance Order "involve[d] important rights
which would be irreparably lost if review had to await a final
judgment" because Meyers' appeal from the Compliance Order could
4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
become moot once a sentence finalizing the drug demand reduction
fee was entered. Id.
Turning to the merits, we further conclude, as we did
in Rivero-Garcia, that the district court exceeded its authority
under HRS § 291E-61(h) (2020) by requiring Meyers to appear for
compliance review hearings.
HRS § 291E-61 (Supp. 2023) governs the district
court's referral of a person convicted of OVUII for substance
abuse assessment and treatment by a certified substance abuse
counselor. The statute provides that "[a]ll costs for
assessment and treatment shall be borne by the offender." HRS
§ 291E-61(h). DDE shall submit the counselor's report and
recommendations to the court, and the court "shall require the
offender to obtain appropriate treatment if the counselor's
assessment establishes the offender's substance abuse or
dependence." Id. The statute does not, however, authorize the
district court to set compliance review hearings, akin to terms
and conditions of probation, which would "upend[] the statutory
process." State v. Fay, 154 Hawaiʻi 305, 308,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 10-JUN-2026 10:21 AM Dkt. 84 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI
STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CURRENA TOMIE MEYERS, Defendant-Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT NORTH AND SOUTH KONA DIVISION (CASE NO. 3DTA-24-00558)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and Guidry, JJ.)
Defendant-Appellant Currena Tomie Meyers (Meyers)
appeals from the District Court of the Third Circuit's (district
court) September 20, 2024 "Findings Of Fact and Conclusions of
Law and Order Denying [Meyers'] Motion to Strike Proof of
Compliance Hearings Filed August 7, 2024" (Compliance Order). 1
1 The Honorable David R. Harada-Stone presided over entry of the Compliance Order, and the "Amended Judgment and Notice of Entry of Amended Judgment as to Drug Demand Reduction Fee" (Amended Judgment), filed on December 19, 2024. The Honorable Ann S. Datta presided over the entry of the
(continued . . .) NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
On July 10, 2024, Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawaiʻi
(State) filed an Amended Complaint charging Meyers with
operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant (OVUII)
as a highly intoxicated driver, in violation of Hawaii Revised
Statutes (HRS) § 291E-61(a)(1), (a)(3), and/or (b)(4) (2020 &
Supp. 2023) (Count 1), and operating an uninsured motor vehicle
in violation of HRS § 431:10C-104(a) (2019) (Count 2). Meyers
entered into a plea agreement with the State, whereby Meyers
pled no contest to the Count I charge of OVUII, but without the
highly intoxicated driver enhancement, and the State dismissed
Count 2 with prejudice. The district court accepted Meyers'
plea and entered its Judgment on August 5, 2024.
The Judgment ordered Meyers to complete a substance
abuse assessment, classes, and any recommended treatment, and to
pay, inter alia, a $250 drug demand reduction fee. The fee was
"taken under advisement for 1 year and subject to be waived on
condition of successful completion of required substance abuse
assessment, classes, and any recommended treatment." Meyers was
ordered to appear on October 17, 2024, for a proof of compliance
hearing.
2(. . . continued)
"Judgment and Notice of Entry of Judgment" (Judgment), filed on August 5, 2024.
2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
On August 7, 2024, Meyers moved to strike the
compliance hearing. The State opposed the motion to strike.
The district court denied the motion to strike, and entered the
Compliance Order; Meyers appealed from the Compliance Order,
creating this appeal.
At the October 17, 2024 proof of compliance hearing,
the district court found that Meyers had completed the substance
abuse assessment, but still needed to complete the outpatient
program and classes recommended by the assessment. The district
court continued the hearing to December 19, 2024 to allow Meyers
additional time to complete the classes. On November 29, 2024,
the Division of Driver Education (DDE) reported that Meyers had
completed the required substance abuse outpatient program and
classes. On December 19, 2024, following the continued hearing,
the district court entered its Amended Judgment. The Amended
Judgment stated that: Meyers "is in full compliance with
driver's education requirements as well as fines and fees.
Court waived the $250.00 drug demand reduction fee that was
previously taken under advisement. Court will take no further
action."
On appeal, Meyers raises a single point of error,
contending that the district court erred "by creating an
unauthorized probation-type sentencing disposition with endless
proof-of-compliance hearings to ensure [Meyers] followed through
3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
on the substance abuse assessment and classes." (Formatting
altered.) Upon careful review of the record, briefs, and
relevant legal authorities, and having given due consideration
to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties,
we address Meyers' point of error as follows.
We first address the matter of our jurisdiction over
the appeal. Ditto v. McCurdy, 103 Hawaiʻi 153, 157, 80 P.3d 974,
978 (2003). As in State v. Rivero-Garcia, No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX,
2026 WL 1582067, at *2-3 (Haw. App. June 3, 2026), we conclude
that we have jurisdiction, pursuant to the collateral order
doctrine, over the district court's Compliance Order. Here, the
Compliance Order "fully dispose[d] of the question at issue,"
State v. Baranco, 77 Hawaiʻi 351, 353-54, 884 P.2d 729, 731-32
(1994), of whether the district court was authorized to order
compliance review hearings under HRS § 291E-61(b) (2020), which
states that "[a] person committing the offense of [OVUII] shall
be sentenced without possibility of probation or suspension of
sentence[.]" The Compliance Order also "resolve[d] an issue
completely collateral to the merits of the case," i.e., Meyers'
conviction and sentencing. Baranco, 77 Hawaiʻi at 354, 884 P.3d
at 732. And the Compliance Order "involve[d] important rights
which would be irreparably lost if review had to await a final
judgment" because Meyers' appeal from the Compliance Order could
4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
become moot once a sentence finalizing the drug demand reduction
fee was entered. Id.
Turning to the merits, we further conclude, as we did
in Rivero-Garcia, that the district court exceeded its authority
under HRS § 291E-61(h) (2020) by requiring Meyers to appear for
compliance review hearings.
HRS § 291E-61 (Supp. 2023) governs the district
court's referral of a person convicted of OVUII for substance
abuse assessment and treatment by a certified substance abuse
counselor. The statute provides that "[a]ll costs for
assessment and treatment shall be borne by the offender." HRS
§ 291E-61(h). DDE shall submit the counselor's report and
recommendations to the court, and the court "shall require the
offender to obtain appropriate treatment if the counselor's
assessment establishes the offender's substance abuse or
dependence." Id. The statute does not, however, authorize the
district court to set compliance review hearings, akin to terms
and conditions of probation, which would "upend[] the statutory
process." State v. Fay, 154 Hawaiʻi 305, 308, 550 P.3d 1163,
1166 (2024).
HRS § 706-650 (Supp. 2016) requires the district court
to impose the $250 drug demand reduction assessment "when the
person has been found guilty of an offense under section . . .
291E-61." HRS § 706-650(2)(e) (2014). This statute provides
5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
that, "[i]f the person undergoes a substance abuse treatment
program at the person's expense, the court may waive or reduce
the amount of the monetary assessment." HRS § 706-650(5) (Supp.
2016).
After accepting Meyers' no contest plea to OVUII, the
district court could, as one possible alternative, have
sentenced Meyers to complete a substance abuse assessment and
any recommended treatment, and to pay the statutory drug demand
reduction assessment, to be reimbursed under HRS § 706-650(5) 2 if
and when DDE reported that no substance abuse treatment was
recommended or that Meyers had paid for and completed
recommended treatment. That would have been a final sentence,
with no post-judgment compliance hearing required.
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the Compliance
Order.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, June 10, 2026.
On the briefs: /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Presiding Judge Benjamin E. Lowenthal, Sara K. Haley, /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth Deputy Public Defenders, Associate Judge for Defendant-Appellant. /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry Charles E. Murray, III, Associate Judge Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, County of Hawaiʻi, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
2 Reimbursement could be paid from the drug demand reduction assessments special fund established under HRS § 706-650(3) (2014).