State v. Pascubillo

• Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 10, 2026
• Docket: CAAP-24-0000636
• 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER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 07:53 AM Dkt. 78 SO NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

STATE OF HAWAI I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LANCE AVERY PASCUBILLO, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT NORTH & SOUTH KONA DIVISION (CASE NO. 3DCW-XX-XXXXXXX)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Hiraoka and McCullen, JJ.) Defendant-Appellant Lance Pascubillo, Jr. (Pascubillo),

appeals from the September 9, 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

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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER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

Pascubillo's point of error as follows:

Pascubillo 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). He

was sentenced to, inter alia, complete substance abuse assessment

and 14 hours substance abuse rehabilitation program. A $250 Drug

Demand Reduction Fee was taken under advisement for one year on

the condition that Pascubillo have no further similar

violations.2 After the District Court imposed the sentence, the

District Court set a compliance hearing. On the same day,

August 12, 2024, the District Court entered a Judgment and Notice

of Entry of Judgment (Judgment), which stated, inter alia, that

the $250 Drug Demand Reduction Fee was taken under advisement –

without further explanation. After Pascubillo moved to strike

the proof-of-compliance hearings, on September 9, 2024, the

District Court entered the Compliance Hearings Order. On

December 19, 2024, after a hearing, the District Court entered an

Amended Judgment and Notice of Entry of Judgment (Amended

Judgment).3 The Amended Judgment states that the Drug Demand

Reduction Fee is waived.

Pascubillo 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

and the District Court is not authorized to use compliance

2 The Honorable David R. Harada-Stone presided. 3 There is no hearing transcript in the record on appeal, but the Amended Judgment reflects that a hearing was held.

2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

hearings in this OVUII case as a form of probation to monitor

Pascubillo's substance abuse treatment and rehabilitation.

The argument that the District Court is not authorized

to use compliance hearings in OVUII cases as a form of probation

has merit. Although it does not change our disposition here, we

note that the record before us is somewhat unclear as to the

reason that compliance hearings were being set. The oral ruling

reflected in the transcript of the August 12, 2024 hearing is

silent as to the reason for compliance hearings. The Judgment

states that the $250 Drug Demand Reduction Fee was taken under

advisement for one year on condition that Pascubillo have no

further similar violations – suggesting that the compliance

hearings were related to that condition. However, the Compliance

Hearings Order states that Pascubillo was ordered to return to

court "for the purpose of reviewing compliance with the treatment

components of the Judgment related to the OVUII."

Nevertheless, based on the rationale 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 Pascubillo to appear for compliance

hearings. There is no statutory authority supporting the

District Court's use of compliance hearings, while keeping part

of Pascubillo's OVUII sentence "under advisement" in this manner,

regardless of the specific purpose of the compliance hearings.

Therefore, we conclude that the District Court erred in entering

the Compliance Hearings Order.

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

Accordingly, the District Court's September 9, 2024

Compliance Hearings Order is reversed.

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

On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard Presiding Judge Benjamin Lowenthal, Deputy Public Defender, /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka (on opening brief only), Associate Judge

and /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen 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.