Vierra v. Bernardino

CourtHawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals
DecidedJune 18, 2021
DocketCAAP-21-0000353
StatusPublished

This text of Vierra v. Bernardino (Vierra v. Bernardino) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Vierra v. Bernardino, (hawapp 2021).

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 18-JUN-2021 09:01 AM Dkt. 6 ODSLJ NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

ANTONIO VIERRA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MONICA BERNARDINO, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT #EWA DIVISION (CIVIL NO. 1DRC-XX-XXXXXXX)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL FOR LACK OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION (By: Ginoza, Chief Judge, Fujise and Hiraoka, JJ.) Upon review of the record, it appears we lack appellate jurisdiction over self-represented Defendant-Appellant Monica Bernardino's (Bernardino) appeal from the Judgment for Possession (Judgment) and Writ of Possession, entered by the District Court of the First Circuit, #Ewa Division (district court), on April 13, 2021, because it is untimely. Bernardino conventionally filed the notice of appeal in the district court, in accordance with Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 3(a). Although the notice of appeal and certificate of service are dated May 13, 2021, the notice of appeal was stamped "RECEIVED" by the district court clerk on May 14, 2021 and is deemed to have been filed on that date. See Hawai#i Electronic Filing and Service Rules Rule 2.5. Because Bernardino did not file her notice of appeal within thirty days after entry of the Judgment and Writ of Possession, as required by HRAP Rule 4(a)(1), the appeal is untimely. "As a general rule, compliance with the requirement of the timely filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional, . . . NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

and we must dismiss an appeal on our motion if we lack jurisdiction." Grattafiori v. State, 79 Hawai#i 10, 13, 897 P.2d 937, 940 (1995) (cleaned up); see HRAP Rule 26(b) ("[N]o court or judge or justice is authorized to change the jurisdictional requirements contained in Rule 4 of these rules."). Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 18, 2021.

/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza Chief Judge

/s/ Alexa D.M. Fujise Associate Judge /s/ Keith K. Hiraoka Associate Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Grattafiori v. State
897 P.2d 937 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Vierra v. Bernardino, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vierra-v-bernardino-hawapp-2021.