State v. Roberts, III

• Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 25, 2026
• Docket: CAAP-24-0000822
• Status: Published

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 25-MAR-2026 07:50 AM Dkt. 123 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHARLES FREDRICK ROBERTS, III, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT KĀNEʻOHE DIVISION (CASE NO. 1DTI-24-094777)

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

Self-represented Defendant-Appellant Charles Fredrick

Roberts III (Roberts) appeals from the District Court of the

First Circuit's (district court) 1 November 27, 2024 "Notice of

Entry of Judgment and/or Order and Plea/Judgment" (Judgment). 2

On September 22, 2024, Plaintiff-Appellee State of

Hawaiʻi (State) issued a Notice of Traffic Infraction pursuant to

1 The Honorable Alvin K. Nishimura presided.

2 We construe Roberts' "Motion for Leave to Appeal In Form [sic] Pauperis" as his notice of appeal. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Hawaii Revised Statutes § 291D-5 (2020). Following a hearing on

October 22, 2024, and trial de novo on November 27, 2024, the

district court entered Judgment in favor of the State and fined

Roberts $40.

On appeal, Roberts raises three points of error,

contending that the district court erred: (1) by "enter[ing] a

final judgment in this case without first deciding on [his]

motion to suppress"; (2) "in making substantive findings on the

merits of the [S]tate's witness, that was a part of their ruling

that was used to dismiss [the] case" thus demonstrating judicial

"personal bias"; and (3) because "the prosecutorial misconduct

[was not] harmless beyond a reasonable doubt."

Upon careful review of the record, briefs, and

relevant legal authorities, we affirm the Judgment. We note

that there are no transcripts of proceedings for the record on

appeal, and we therefore lack a sufficient record to review the

alleged errors. See Bettencourt v. Bettencourt, 80 Hawaiʻi 225,

230, 909 P.2d 553, 558 (1995) ("The burden is upon appellant in

an appeal to show error by reference to matters in the record,

and he or she has the responsibility of providing an adequate

transcript." (cleaned up)); see also Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate

Procedure Rule 10(b)(1)(A) ("When an appellant desires to raise

any point on appeal that requires consideration of the oral

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

proceedings before the court appealed from, the appellant shall

file . . . a request or requests to prepare a reporter's

transcript of such parts of the proceedings as the appellant

deems necessary that are not already on file in the appeal.").

We therefore affirm the Judgment.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, March 25, 2026.

On the briefs: /s/ Karen T. Nakasone Chief Judge Charles Fredrick Roberts III, Self-Represented /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen Defendant-Appellant. Associate Judge

Brian R. Vincent, /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Associate Judge City and County of Honolulu, for Plaintiff-Appellee.