Opinion
No. CAAP–14–0001186.
10-06-2015
STATE of Hawai‘i, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. DAN MEZURASHI, Defendant–Appellee, and Exodus Bail Bond, Real Party–In–Interest Appellant.
Anthony T. Fujii, on the briefs, for Real Party–In–Interest Appellant. Loren J. Thomas, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, City and County of Honolulu, on the briefs, for Plaintiff–Appellee.
Anthony T. Fujii, on the briefs, for Real Party–In–Interest Appellant.
Loren J. Thomas, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, City and County of Honolulu, on the briefs, for Plaintiff–Appellee.
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
[136 Hawai'i 1]
Real–Party–in–Interest/Appellant Exodus Bail Bond (Exodus) appeals from the Order Denying Motion to Reconsider Denial of Motion to Set Aside Bail Forfeiture (Order Denying Reconsideration), which was entered on September 17, 2014, in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Circuit Court).
The Honorable Dexter D. Del Rosario presided.
On appeal, Exodus asserts that: (1) the Circuit Court erred when it allowed the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney (Prosecutor) to represent the State of Hawai‘i (State) in a bail forfeiture proceeding; (2) the Circuit Court erred when it allowed the Prosecutor to enforce the Circuit Court's August 6, 2007 Judgment and Order of Forfeiture of Bail Bond (Forfeiture Judgment); (3) the Forfeiture Judgment is void; and (4) the Circuit Court gravely erred in summarily denying reconsideration.
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 conclude that Exodus's arguments are without merit. This court has previously considered and rejected Exodus's contention that the Prosecutor is not authorized to represent the State in bail forfeiture proceedings. See State v. Miles, 135 Hawai‘i 525, ––– P.3d ––––, (App.2015); State v. Allen, No. 14–0000838 (App. June 24, 2015).
Accordingly, the Circuit Court's September 17, 2014 Order Denying Reconsideration is affirmed.