This court has held that "[t]he meaning of the term `convicted' or `conviction' varies according to the context in which it appears and the purpose to which it relates." State v. Akana, 68 Haw. 164, 166-67, 706 P.2d 1300, 1303, reconsideration denied, 68 Haw. 164, 706 P.2d 1300 (1985) (citations omitted). Generally, a conviction is defined as "[t]he final judgment on a verdict or finding of guilty, a plea of guilty, or a plea of nolo contendere, but does not include a final judgment which has been expunged by pardon, reversed, set aside, or otherwise rendered nugatory."

"The most frequent use of judicial notice of ascertainable facts is in noticing the contents of court records." State v. Akana, 68 Haw. 164, 165, 706 P.2d 1300, 1302 (1985). The "ready availability and accuracy" of court records, particularly those that are "the trial court’s own file and in the court’s immediate possession[,]" generally cannot be considered reasonably questionable.

Use of the term “conviction” in a statute presents a question of legislative intent. State v. Akana, 68 Haw. 164 , 166-67, 706 P.2d 1300 , 1303 (1985) (citations omitted). In Akana, the supreme court construed the meaning of the term “convicted” as used in a statute requiting the revocation of probation for a defendant who is “convicted of a felony.”

The term "convicted" in the context of HRS § 706-625(e) would appear to include the "ascertainment of guilt by [a] guilty plea." Cf. State v. Akana, 68 Haw. 164, 167, 706 P.2d 1300, 1303 (1985). However, in this case, the court asserted that resentencing would extend beyond the charge of which Defendant had been convicted and subject him "to the full panoply of penalty [sic] provided by law" including "the specific statutes cited by [the] State in their [sic] indictment."

In its answering brief, the State contends that the taking of judicial notice by the district court was proper because "[a]fter 'an extensive hearing' held in Wong, . . . Judge Kimura qualified Officer Dowkin as an [sic] DRE and ruled that' the DRE program 12 step matrix was a valid test to ascertaining drug impairment[.]'" In support of this contention, the State relies on State v. Akana, 68 Haw. 164, 706 P.2d 1300 (1985), in which the Hawai'i Supreme Court noted that "[t]he most frequent use of judicial notice of ascertainable facts is in noticing the contents of court records." Id. at 165, 706 P.2d at 1302.

In this case, however, a simple and literal reading of the statute is impossible, because we are dealing with the often employed but rarely precisely defined term "conviction." See State v. Akana, 68 Haw. 164, 166, 706 P.2d 1300, 1303 (1985) ("[t]he meaning of the term `convicted' or `conviction' varies according to the context in which it appears and the purpose to which it relates.") For example, for the purpose of sentencing repeat offenders, HRS § 706-606.5, the term "conviction" consists of a finding of guilt by a jury or a court and a pronounced judgment. See Rodrigues, 68 Haw. 124, 706 P.2d 1293.

“The most frequent use of judicial notice of ascertainable facts is in noticing the content of court records.” State v. Akana, 68 Haw. 164 , 166, 706 P.2d 1300 , 1302 (1985).

In the past, "[t]his court has validated the practice of taking judicial notice of a court's own records in an interrelated proceeding where the parties are the same." State v. Akana, 68 Haw. 164, 165, 706 P.2d 1300, 1302 (1985) (citing State v. Wong, 50 Haw. 42, 43, 430 P.2d 330, 332 (1967) ). Here, the filings from appeal CAAP–12–0000625 are included in the ICA's electronic records through the Judiciary Information Management System (JIMS), and the parties in the two appeals are the same.

(Formatting altered.) See Hawai'i Rules of Evidence (HRE) Rule 201; State v. Akana, 68 Haw. 164, 165-66, 706 P.2d 1300, 1302 (1985) (discussing judicial notice of court's own records in related proceedings). 2. Judgment for Summary Possession

The contents of court records are frequently the subject of judicial notice, because court records, particularly those in the trial court's files or immediate possession, are readily accessible and the accuracy of those records "generally cannot be considered reasonably questionable." Id. (quoting State v. Akana, 68 Haw. 164, 166, 706 P.2d 1300, 1302 (1985)). A trial court may take judicial notice of "an interrelated proceeding where the parties are the same[.]"