State v. Peter

• Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
• Decided: January 27, 2026
• Docket: CAAP-25-0000341
• Status: Published

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 27-JAN-2026 08:10 AM Dkt. 47 SO

NOS. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX AND CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAYJAY J. PETER, Defendant-Appellant. (CR. NO. 1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX)

AND

CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAYJAY PETER, Defendant-Appellant. (CR. NO. 1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX)

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, McCullen and Guidry, JJ.)

Defendant-Appellant JayJay J. Peter appeals from the

Circuit Court of the First Circuit's March 13, 2025 orders

revoking his probation and sentencing him to a five-year term

and ten-year term of imprisonment, to run concurrently with NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

credit for time served. 1 On appeal, Peter challenges the

revocation of his probation for failure to report to his

probation officer at any point during the five months prior to

his rearrest following release.

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs

submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to

the issues raised and the arguments advanced, we resolve this

appeal as discussed below, and affirm.

Pursuant to a global plea deal in two criminal cases,

on August 1, 2024, Peter was convicted of Burglary in the Second

Degree and Theft in the First Degree, and a charge of

Unauthorized Control of a Propelled Vehicle in the First Degree

was dismissed. The parties also agreed to a sentence of a four-

year term of probation for each offense, to run concurrently,

with 364 days of jail. The circuit court imposed the agreed-

upon sentence.

As a condition of his probation, Peter was required to

report to his probation officer upon release from confinement,

either immediately or to schedule an appointment within 24

hours:

1 The Honorable Trish K. Morikawa presided.

2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

[U]pon your release from confinement, you are ordered to report immediately to:

Adult Client Services 777 Punchbowl Street Honolulu, HI 96813 (808) 539-4500

or upon release from any term of confinement, you are ordered to schedule an appointment with your probation officer or an Adult Client Services Branch designee within 24 hours of release[.]

The next day, August 2, Peter was released from

custody. Six weeks later, Probation Officer Danielle Boter

declared that Peter failed to report to or contact probation

within 24 hours of his release and his whereabouts were still

unknown. The State moved to revoke Peter's probation, a bench

warrant issued, and Peter was arrested on January 17, 2025, more

than five months after his release from confinement.

During the hearing on the motion to revoke, Peter

admitted he did not report to his probation officer within 24

hours after his release or anytime thereafter. Peter stated

that, after his release from custody, he went to Waiʻanae and was

drinking with family, he was confused and forgot, he did not

have a phone, he did not have his paperwork with him, and he did

not know where the probation office was located. And when

asked, "Did you ever go to the probation office after August 2,

2024?" Peter responded, "No, I didn't."

The circuit court found that Peter "inexcusably failed

to comply with a substantial requirement of the Judgment setting

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

forth the terms and conditions of probation" and, thus, revoked

his probation. Peter timely appealed from each order, which we

consolidated.

On appeal, Peter admits he did not report to his

probation officer but contends the circuit court "erred in

revoking [his] probation because there was insufficient evidence

to support the Circuit Court's conclusion that [he] willfully

and inexcusably failed to comply with the conditions of

probation."

Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS) § 706-624(1)(b) (2014)

provides as a mandatory condition of probation "[t]hat the

defendant report to a probation officer as directed by the court

or the probation officer[.]" HRS § 706-625(3) (Supp. 2024)

provides that the circuit court "shall revoke probation if the

defendant has inexcusably failed to comply with a substantial

requirement imposed as a condition of the order."

In determining "inexcusability," we must look at

whether Peter's actions were intentional, and if so, were his

actions "a deliberate attempt to circumvent the court's

probation order." State v. Villiarimo, 132 Hawaiʻi 209, 222, 320

P.3d 874, 887 (2014). "[T]he mind of an alleged offender may be

read from his acts, conduct and inferences fairly drawn from all

the circumstances." State v. Stocker, 90 Hawaiʻi 85, 92, 976

4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

P.2d 399, 406 (1999) (quoting State v. Sadino, 64 Haw. 427, 430,

642 P.2d 534, 537 (1982)).

We review the circuit court's decision that Peter's

failure to comply was inexcusable under the right/wrong

standard. See State v. Lazar, 82 Hawaiʻi 441, 443, 922 P.2d

1054, 1056 (App. 1996).

Here, the circuit court's probation order required

Peter to report to his probation officer, at the latest, by

scheduling an appointment within 24 hours from being released

from confinement. The probation order provided the address and

phone number for the probation office.

Peter, however, did not report to his probation

officer within the first 24 hours after being released from

confinement. And Peter admitted to not reporting to the

probation office at all after his release from confinement.

Peter was arrested over five months after being released.

Additionally, Peter acknowledges that this conduct

differed from his conduct while on probation in 2005 and 2008,

when he did meet with his district court probation officer.

A reasonable inference from these circumstances is

that Peter failed to report to his probation officer as ordered

by the circuit court and for over five months thereafter.

Failing to report at all to his probation officer for over five

months evinces a deliberate attempt to evade complying with the

5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

circuit court's probation order. See Villiarimo, 132 Hawaiʻi at

222, 320 P.3d at 887.

Thus, the circuit court did not err in concluding

Peter's failure to report to the probation office was

inexcusable.

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the circuit court's

March 13, 2025 "Order of Resentencing and Revocation of

Probation" in 1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX and 1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, January 27, 2026.

On the briefs: /s/ Karen T. Nakasone Chief Judge Emmanuel G. Guerrero, for Defendant-Appellant. /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen Associate Judge Stephen K. Tsushima, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry City and County of Honolulu, Associate Judge for Plaintiff-Appellee.