State v. Wilson

557 P.3d 909, 155 Haw. 180

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 30-OCT-2024 08:06 AM Dkt. 48 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FRANK E. WILSON, Defendant-Appellant, and ALFRED L. WOODS, Defendant-Appellee

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

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

Defendant-Appellant Frank E. Wilson (Wilson), appeals

from the "Order Denying [] Wilson's Motion to Dismiss for Lack NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

of Jurisdiction[,]" filed on March 2, 2020 (Order)1 by the

Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit court).2

Wilson raises a single point of error on appeal:

"Whether the [circuit court] erred in denying [Wilson's] Motion

to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction without considering,

determining, and discussing in the Order whether Schofield

Barracks was in fact a critical or vital area thus divesting the

State of concurrent jurisdiction."

Upon careful review of the record and relevant legal

authorities, and having given due consideration to the arguments

advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we conclude that

Wilson's contention lacks merit.

Wilson's jurisdictional argument, that the State of

Hawaiʻi lacks concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute offenses

committed at Schofield Barracks, raises a question of statutory

interpretation. "Questions of statutory interpretation are

questions of law reviewable de novo." Hawaii Gov't Emps. Ass'n,

1 The State charged Wilson by indictment with Computer Fraud in the First Degree, in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 708-891(1) (2014) (Count 1), and Theft in the First Degree, in violation of HRS §§ 708- 830.5(1)(a) and § 708-830(1) (2014) (Count 2). The circuit court dismissed both Counts 1 and 2 without prejudice. Wilson's appeal is timely taken from the circuit court's "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Granting [] Wilson's Motion for Reconsideration of the Denial of [] Wilson's Motion to Dismiss Counts 1 and 2 of the Indictment[,]" (FOF/COL/Order) filed on November 19, 2021, which resulted in the dismissal of this case without prejudice. See State v. Nicol, 140 Hawaiʻi 482, 494, 403 P.3d 259, 271 (2017) ("HRS § 641-11 authorizes a defendant's appeal in a criminal matter from a circuit court order dismissing the proceedings without prejudice").

2 The Honorable Rowena A. Somerville presided.

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

AFSCME Loc. 152 v. Lingle, 124 Hawaiʻi 197, 201-02, 239 P.3d 1,

5-6 (2010).

In § 16(b) of the Hawaii Statehood Act, Congress

established that the State would share concurrent jurisdiction

with the federal government over lands in Hawaiʻi owned or

controlled by the federal government at the time of Hawaiʻi's

admission as a State. Pub. L. No. 86-3, § 16(b) 73 Stat. 4, 11-

12 (1959). Section 16(b) also, however, reserved to the federal

government "sole and exclusive jurisdiction over such military

installations as have been heretofore or hereafter determined to

be critical areas as delineated by the President of the United

States and/or the Secretary of Defense." Id. (emphasis added).

Wilson contends that Schofield Barracks, as a military

installation, is a "critical area," as contemplated in the

Hawaii Statehood Act. In support of his contention, Wilson

relies on the President's Executive Order No. 10104, issued on

February 1, 1950, which defines, inter alia, "[a]ll military,

naval, or air-force installations[,]" as "vital military and

naval installations."

In State v. Thomas, 8 Haw. App. 497, 504, 810 P.2d

668, 671-72 (App. 1991), this court held that,

the very last proviso in § 16(b) holds that if the President and/or Secretary of Defense determines that a military installation in this state is a "critical area," then the United States would have exclusive jurisdiction over the land within the installation. Again, we are not

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

aware that such a determination has been made. Although there is some authority indicating that Pearl Harbor and its surrounding contiguous federal lands have been declared "vital" to the national defense of the country, we decline, without more, to hold that such a declaration is the equivalent of the determination required in the last proviso of § 16(b). See Silas Mason Co. v. Tax Comm'n, 302 U.S. 186, 58 S.Ct. 233, 82 L.Ed. 187 (1937). Absent a concrete pronouncement by the federal government that it desires or requires exclusive jurisdiction over the land at Iroquois Point, we must give effect to the concurrent jurisdiction established by § 16(b).

(emphasis added).

Here, as in Thomas, we have not been made aware of any

determination by the President and/or Secretary of Defense that

Schofield Barracks is a "critical area" for purposes of § 16(b).

As in Thomas, we decline to hold that Executive Order No. 10104

is the equivalent of such a determination. We must therefore

give effect to the concurrent jurisdiction established by §

16(b).

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Order, filed

March 2, 2020.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, October 30, 2024.

On the briefs: /s/ Katherine G. Leonard Emmanuel G. Guerrero, Acting Chief Judge for Defendant-Appellant. /s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth Stephen K. Tsushima, Associate Judge Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, City and County of Honolulu /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry for Plaintiff-Appellee. Associate Judge