State v. Tamashiro

• Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
• Decided: May 14, 2025
• Docket: CAAP-22-0000718
• Status: Published

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 14-MAY-2025 08:26 AM Dkt. 59 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GENE TAMASHIRO, Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CR. NO. 1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Wadsworth, and Nakasone, JJ.)

Defendant-Appellant Gene Tamashiro (Tamashiro), self-

represented, appeals from the November 2, 2022 Judgment of

Conviction and Sentence; Notice of Entry (Judgment), entered by

the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court).1 After a

jury trial, Tamashiro was convicted of one count of Misdemeanors,

in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes § 127A-29 (2011), and one

count of State Parks Closed Area, in violation of Hawaii

Administrative Rules § 13-146-4(a).

Tamashiro raises no points of error and provides no

references to the record on appeal, either to identify where in

the record the Circuit Court erred or what evidence or argument

1 The Honorable Clarissa Y. Malinao presided. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

in the record supports his appeal to this court. Tamashiro has

failed to comply with, inter alia, Hawai#i Rules of Appellate

Procedure Rule 28(b)(3), (4), (5), & (7). However, this court

has long adhered to the policy of affording litigants the

opportunity to be heard on the merits whenever possible. Erum v.

Llego, 147 Hawai#i 368, 380, 465 P.3d 815, 827 (2020) (citing

Morgan v. Plan. Dep't, 104 Hawai#i 173, 180-81, 86 P.3d 982,

989-90 (2004)). In view of this longstanding policy, a pro se

litigant's failure to conform to procedural requirements should

not automatically foreclose appellate review. Id. at 381, 465

P.3d at 828. We therefore liberally construe Tamashiro's brief

and attempt to address the merits of his argument.

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, we resolve

Tamashiro's appeal as follows:

Tamashiro argues that the State of Hawai#i judicial

system and the Circuit Court erred because the prosecutor and the

Circuit Court failed to produce substantial evidence of lawful

title and jurisdiction over Tamashiro or over #Iolani Palace. Tamashiro submits that the Hawaiian Kingdom is under United

States military/corporate occupation, and therefore, the Circuit

Court lacked jurisdiction, both subject matter and personal

jurisdiction in this case. Tamashiro asks this court to, inter

alia, vacate the judgment and initiate steps toward the public

admission about Hawaii's status as a sovereign country under

occupation.

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

In short, as found by the Circuit Court, Tamashiro is

claiming that he is immune from prosecution due to the illegal

overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Tamashiro seemingly confirms

this on appeal, concluding in reference to his sovereignty

argument: "I admitted to jumping the fence with no

mask . . . [t]he real question is why did I do that?"

We conclude that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction

over Tamashiro and the State's criminal jurisdiction encompasses

all areas within the territorial boundaries of the State,

including the grounds of #Iolani Palace. See State v. Kaulia,

128 Hawai#i 479, 487, 291 P.3d 377, 385 (2013). Tamashiro makes

no cogent argument that the Circuit Court otherwise erred in

entering the Judgment.

Accordingly, the Circuit Court's November 2, 2022

Judgment is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 14, 2025.

On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard Acting Chief Judge Gene Tamashiro, Defendant-Appellant, pro se. /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth Associate Judge Adrian Dhakhwa, Deputy Attorney General, /s/ Karen T. Nakasone Department of the Attorney Associate Judge General, for Plaintiff-Appellee.