NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 15-MAR-2021 07:45 AM Dkt. 65 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAUL MANUEL RIOS, Defendant-Appellant
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (HONOLULU DIVISION) (CASE NO. 1DTA-19-01049)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Hiraoka and Wadsworth, JJ.)
Defendant-Appellant Raul Manuel Rios (Rios) appeals
from the Notice of Entry of Judgment and/or Order and
Plea/Judgment entered on September 24, 2019 (Judgment), and
Amended Notice of Entry of Judgment and/or Order and
Plea/Judgment entered on November 7, 2019 (Amended Judgment), in
the District Court of the First Circuit, Honolulu Division
(District Court).1/
1/ The Honorable Harlan Y. Kimura presided. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
On April 1, 2019, Rios was charged by Complaint with
Operating a Vehicle After License and Privilege Have Been
Suspended or Revoked for Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence
of an Intoxicant (OVLPSR-OVUII), in violation of Hawaii Revised
Statutes (HRS) § 291E-62(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) (Supp. 2019).2/
Rios raises a single point of error on appeal,
contending that there was not substantial evidence to support his
conviction.
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 Rios's point of error as follows:
The Hawai#i Supreme Court has long held: [E]vidence adduced in the trial court must be considered in the strongest light for the prosecution when the appellate court passes on the legal sufficiency of such evidence to support a conviction; the same standard applies whether the case was before a judge or a jury. The test on appeal is not whether guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt,
2/ HRS § 291E-62(a) provides, in relevant part:
§ 291E-62 Operating a vehicle after license and privilege have been suspended or revoked for operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant; penalties. (a) No person whose license and privilege to operate a vehicle have been revoked, suspended, or otherwise restricted pursuant to this section or to part III or section 291E-61 or 291E-61.5, or to part VII or part XIV of chapter 286 or section 200-81, 291-4, 291-4.4, 291-4.5, or 291-7 as those provisions were in effect on December 31, 2001, shall operate or assume actual physical control of any vehicle:
(1) In violation of any restrictions placed on the person's license;
(2) While the person's license or privilege to operate a vehicle remains suspended or revoked[.]
2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
but whether there was substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the trier of fact. Indeed, even if it could be said in a bench trial that the conviction is against the weight of the evidence, as long as there is substantial evidence to support the requisite findings for conviction, the trial court will be affirmed.
"Substantial evidence" as to every material element of the offense charged is credible evidence which is of sufficient quality and probative value to enable [a person] of reasonable caution to support a conclusion. And as trier of fact, the trial judge is free to make all reasonable and rational inferences under the facts in evidence, including circumstantial evidence.
State v. Batson, 73 Haw. 236, 248-49, 831 P.2d 924, 931 (1992).
State v. Matavale, 115 Hawai#i 149, 157-58, 166 P.3d 322, 330-31
(2007).
Rios argues that the State of Hawai#i (State) failed to
adduce substantial evidence that (a) Rios was the person
identified in the exhibits purporting to establish that his
license was revoked, and/or (b) Rios recklessly operated his
vehicle while his license was revoked.
Rios cites State v. Pantoja, 89 Hawai#i 492, 974 P.2d
1082 (App. 1999), a case in which this court examined the
sufficiency of the evidence identifying the defendant as the same
person who was previously convicted of the relevant offense. In
Pantoja, we noted that the fact that a defendant has the same
name as the previously convicted individual is insufficient and
there must be other evidence tying the defendant to the prior
conviction. Id. at 495, 974 P.2d at 1085 (citing State v. Nishi,
9 Haw. App. 516, 528, 852 P.2d 476, 482 (1993)).
3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Here, Honolulu Police Department (HPD) Officer Mark
Borowski (Officer Borowski) testified that he stopped Rios, Rios
handed the officer an expired permit, and Rios admitted that he
did not have a license. Officer Borowski also identified Rios in
court as the person stopped and arrested. HPD Officer Arlene Ah
You (Officer Ah You) testified that she was involved with Rios's
prior arrest for Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of an
Intoxicant (OVUII) and identified Rios in court. Officer Ah You
testified that, in conjunction with Rios's OVUII arrest, she
personally read the Notice of Administrative Revocation form
(Revocation Form) to Rios and both she and Rios signed the form.
The Revocation Form was admitted into evidence, along with a
certified Traffic Abstract generated on April 5, 2019 (Abstract),
and a certified copy of the September 27, 2018 ADLRO
Administrative Review Decision (Decision). The Abstract
contains, inter alia, Rios's name, driver's license number,
social security number, and date of birth, as do the Decision and
the Revocation Form. This evidence, along with the two officers'
testimony, was sufficient evidence to identify Rios as the same
person whose license was revoked.
Rios also argues that the State failed to adduce
substantial evidence that he was aware that his license had been
revoked. The state of mind required to establish an offense
under HRS § 291E-62(a)(1) is not specified and, therefore, is
4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
established if a person acts intentionally, knowingly, or
recklessly. HRS § 702-204 (2014).
"A person acts recklessly with respect to attendant
circumstances when he consciously disregards a substantial and
unjustifiable risk that such circumstances exist." HRS § 702-
206(3)(b) (2014).
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 15-MAR-2021 07:45 AM Dkt. 65 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RAUL MANUEL RIOS, Defendant-Appellant
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (HONOLULU DIVISION) (CASE NO. 1DTA-19-01049)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Hiraoka and Wadsworth, JJ.)
Defendant-Appellant Raul Manuel Rios (Rios) appeals
from the Notice of Entry of Judgment and/or Order and
Plea/Judgment entered on September 24, 2019 (Judgment), and
Amended Notice of Entry of Judgment and/or Order and
Plea/Judgment entered on November 7, 2019 (Amended Judgment), in
the District Court of the First Circuit, Honolulu Division
(District Court).1/
1/ The Honorable Harlan Y. Kimura presided. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
On April 1, 2019, Rios was charged by Complaint with
Operating a Vehicle After License and Privilege Have Been
Suspended or Revoked for Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence
of an Intoxicant (OVLPSR-OVUII), in violation of Hawaii Revised
Statutes (HRS) § 291E-62(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) (Supp. 2019).2/
Rios raises a single point of error on appeal,
contending that there was not substantial evidence to support his
conviction.
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 Rios's point of error as follows:
The Hawai#i Supreme Court has long held: [E]vidence adduced in the trial court must be considered in the strongest light for the prosecution when the appellate court passes on the legal sufficiency of such evidence to support a conviction; the same standard applies whether the case was before a judge or a jury. The test on appeal is not whether guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt,
2/ HRS § 291E-62(a) provides, in relevant part:
§ 291E-62 Operating a vehicle after license and privilege have been suspended or revoked for operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant; penalties. (a) No person whose license and privilege to operate a vehicle have been revoked, suspended, or otherwise restricted pursuant to this section or to part III or section 291E-61 or 291E-61.5, or to part VII or part XIV of chapter 286 or section 200-81, 291-4, 291-4.4, 291-4.5, or 291-7 as those provisions were in effect on December 31, 2001, shall operate or assume actual physical control of any vehicle:
(1) In violation of any restrictions placed on the person's license;
(2) While the person's license or privilege to operate a vehicle remains suspended or revoked[.]
2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
but whether there was substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the trier of fact. Indeed, even if it could be said in a bench trial that the conviction is against the weight of the evidence, as long as there is substantial evidence to support the requisite findings for conviction, the trial court will be affirmed.
"Substantial evidence" as to every material element of the offense charged is credible evidence which is of sufficient quality and probative value to enable [a person] of reasonable caution to support a conclusion. And as trier of fact, the trial judge is free to make all reasonable and rational inferences under the facts in evidence, including circumstantial evidence.
State v. Batson, 73 Haw. 236, 248-49, 831 P.2d 924, 931 (1992).
State v. Matavale, 115 Hawai#i 149, 157-58, 166 P.3d 322, 330-31
(2007).
Rios argues that the State of Hawai#i (State) failed to
adduce substantial evidence that (a) Rios was the person
identified in the exhibits purporting to establish that his
license was revoked, and/or (b) Rios recklessly operated his
vehicle while his license was revoked.
Rios cites State v. Pantoja, 89 Hawai#i 492, 974 P.2d
1082 (App. 1999), a case in which this court examined the
sufficiency of the evidence identifying the defendant as the same
person who was previously convicted of the relevant offense. In
Pantoja, we noted that the fact that a defendant has the same
name as the previously convicted individual is insufficient and
there must be other evidence tying the defendant to the prior
conviction. Id. at 495, 974 P.2d at 1085 (citing State v. Nishi,
9 Haw. App. 516, 528, 852 P.2d 476, 482 (1993)).
3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Here, Honolulu Police Department (HPD) Officer Mark
Borowski (Officer Borowski) testified that he stopped Rios, Rios
handed the officer an expired permit, and Rios admitted that he
did not have a license. Officer Borowski also identified Rios in
court as the person stopped and arrested. HPD Officer Arlene Ah
You (Officer Ah You) testified that she was involved with Rios's
prior arrest for Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of an
Intoxicant (OVUII) and identified Rios in court. Officer Ah You
testified that, in conjunction with Rios's OVUII arrest, she
personally read the Notice of Administrative Revocation form
(Revocation Form) to Rios and both she and Rios signed the form.
The Revocation Form was admitted into evidence, along with a
certified Traffic Abstract generated on April 5, 2019 (Abstract),
and a certified copy of the September 27, 2018 ADLRO
Administrative Review Decision (Decision). The Abstract
contains, inter alia, Rios's name, driver's license number,
social security number, and date of birth, as do the Decision and
the Revocation Form. This evidence, along with the two officers'
testimony, was sufficient evidence to identify Rios as the same
person whose license was revoked.
Rios also argues that the State failed to adduce
substantial evidence that he was aware that his license had been
revoked. The state of mind required to establish an offense
under HRS § 291E-62(a)(1) is not specified and, therefore, is
4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
established if a person acts intentionally, knowingly, or
recklessly. HRS § 702-204 (2014).
"A person acts recklessly with respect to attendant
circumstances when he consciously disregards a substantial and
unjustifiable risk that such circumstances exist." HRS § 702-
206(3)(b) (2014). A risk is substantial and unjustifiable within the meaning of this section if, considering the nature and purpose of the person's conduct and the circumstances known to him, the disregard of the risk involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the same situation.
HRS § 702-206(3)(d) (2014).
Circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences
arising from the evidence of a defendant's acts, conduct, and all
of the circumstances may be sufficient to establish the requisite
state of mind. See, e.g., State v. Eastman, 81 Hawai#i 131, 141,
913 P.2d 57, 67 (1996).
Here, Officer Ah You testified that, on September 22,
2018, she read the Revocation Form to Rios and that he
acknowledged that he received it and signed the form. The
Revocation Form indicated that Rios was arrested for OVUII, and
that Rios was unlicensed or his license was expired, as well as
that a decision as to whether his license and privilege to
operate a vehicle in the State would be administratively revoked
would be mailed to him not later than eight days after the date
of issuance of the Notice, i.e., the Revocation Form. Thus, Rios
consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that
5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
his license was revoked when he drove his car five months later
when he was stopped and arrested by Officer Borowski.
Accordingly, even though there was no direct evidence that Rios
was aware that his license had been revoked, we conclude that
there was sufficient evidence that Rios consciously disregarded a
substantial and unjustifiable risk that his license was revoked
to support his conviction for OVLPSR-OVUII.
For these reasons, the District Court's September 24,
2019 Judgment and November 7, 2019 Amended Judgment are affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, March 15, 2021.
On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard Jon N. Ikenaga, Presiding Judge Deputy Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant. /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Associate Judge Sonja P. McCullen, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth City and County of Honolulu, Associate Judge for Plaintiff-Appellee.