Opinion
No. CAAP–11–0000793.
2012-11-30
STATE of Hawai‘i, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. David M. SCHLESINGER, Defendant–Appellant.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit, Kona Division (CR. No. 3DTC–11–049806). David M. Schlesinger, on the briefs, Pro Se Defendant–Appellant. Charlene Y. Iboshi, Prosecuting Attorney, Linda L. Walton, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, on the briefs, for Plaintiff–Appellee.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit, Kona Division (CR. No. 3DTC–11–049806).
David M. Schlesinger, on the briefs, Pro Se Defendant–Appellant. Charlene Y. Iboshi, Prosecuting Attorney, Linda L. Walton, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, on the briefs, for Plaintiff–Appellee.
NAKAMURA, Chief Judge, FOLEY and LEONARD.
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
Defendant–Appellant David M. Schlesinger (Schlesinger) appeals pro se from the Order and Notice of Entry of Order entered on September 30, 2011, in the District Court of the Third Circuit (District Court). After a hearing on Schlesinger's motion to dismiss and a bench trial, Schlesinger was convicted of Driving a Motor Vehicle Without a Driver's License, in violation of HRS § 286–102 (2007).
The Honorable Joseph P. Florendo presided.
Schlesinger raises two points of error on appeal, contending that: (1) when denying Schlesinger's motion to dismiss, the District Court “never addresse[d] the essential elements raised in [Schlesinger's] motion to dismiss”; and (2) the District Court violated Schlesinger's due process rights when it proceeded to trial without first giving Schlesinger a chance to review the court's written order denying his motion to dismiss.
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 Schlesinger's points of error as follows:
(1) Schlesinger provides no authority or cogent argument supporting his contention that the District Court's oral ruling and/or written order denying Schlesinger's motion was legally insufficient and we find none.
(2) No transcript was provided for the hearing on Schlesinger's motion to dismiss and subsequent trial. “The law is clear in this jurisdiction that the appellant has the burden of furnishing the appellate court with a sufficient record to positively show the alleged error.” Union Bldg. Materials Corp. v. Kakaako Corp., 5 Haw.App. 146, 151, 682 P.2d 82, 87 (1984); see also State v. Hoanq, 93 Hawai‘i 333, 336, 3 P.3d 499, 502 (2000). Schlesinger provides an insufficient record to review the court's communication of its ruling on the motion to dismiss, to discern whether Schlesinger objected to proceeding with the bench trial, or to review whether further elucidation of the court's ruling might have aided Schlesinger in his defense to the charge of driving without a license. Indeed, Schlesinger provides no authority or cogent argument supporting his contention that the District Court deprived him of due process when it failed to allow him to review the court's written order denying his motion to dismiss, prior to the trial on his driving without a licence charge. We find none.
Therefore, the District Court's September 30, 2011 Order and Notice of Entry of Order is affirmed.