From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Tuisamatatele

INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
May 28, 2014
CAAP-12-0000903 (Haw. Ct. App. May. 28, 2014)

Opinion

CAAP-12-0000903

05-28-2014

STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JERSIAHA F.L. TUISAMATATELE, Defendant-Appellant.

Jonathan Burge for Defendant-Appellant Brian R. Vincent Deputy Prosecuting Attorney City and County of Honolulu for Plaintiff-Appellee


NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER


APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

WAHIAWA DIVISION

(CASE NO. 1DTA-11-03058)


SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

(By: Nakamura, C.J., and Leonard and Ginoza, JJ.)

Defendant-Appellant Jersiaha F.L. Tuisamatatele (Tuisamatatele) appeals from the Judgment entered on October 4, 2012, in the District Court of the First Circuit (District Court). Tuisamatatele was convicted of operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant (OVUII), in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 291E-61(a)(3) (Supp. 2013). We affirm Tuisamatatele's conviction and sentence.

The Honorable Lono J. Lee presided.

HRS § 291E-61(a)(3) provides:

(a) A person commits the offense of operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant if the person operates or assumes actual physical control of a vehicle:
. . .
(3) With .08 or more grams of alcohol per two hundred ten liters of breath[.]

A police officer pulled Tuisamatatele over after observing him engage in a reckless driving maneuver. The officer subsequently arrested Tuisamatatele for OVUII. After Tuisamatatele was transported to the police station, the officer read to Tuisamatatele a form entitled "Use of Intoxicants While Operating a Vehicle Implied Consent for Testing" (Implied Consent Form). Tuisamatatele agreed to take a breath test and refused a blood test. Tuisamatatele's breath test showed that he had a breath alcohol concentration of .179 grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath -- a concentration that exceeded the legal limit. Tuisamatatele moved to suppress the results of his breath test, and the District Court denied his motion.

On appeal, Tuisamatatele challenges the District Court's denial of his motion to suppress. Tuisamatatele argues that: (1) because the police failed to give him Miranda warnings before reading the Implied Consent Form to him and obtaining his decision on testing, the results of his breath test should have been suppressed as the fruit of a Miranda violation; (2) the results of his breath test should have been suppressed because the police misinformed him of his statutory right to an attorney under HRS § 803-9 (1993); and (3) the results of his breath test should have been suppressed because the police misinformed him of the sanctions for refusing to submit to testing.

We recently rejected the same arguments in State v. Won, No. CAAP-12-0000858, --- Hawai'i ---, --- P.3d ---, 2014 WL 1270615 (Hawai'i App. Mar. 28, 2014) (as amended on May 2, 2014). Based on Won, we conclude that the District Court properly denied Tuisamatatele's motion to suppress, and we affirm Tuisamatatele's conviction and sentence under HRS § 291E-61(a)(3) and (b)(1).

Although the District Court dismissed the HRS § 291E-61(a)(1) portion of the OVUII charge, see footnote 2, supra, the typed portion of the District Court's Judgment under "Violation Section" and its files erroneously indicate that Tuisamatatele was convicted of violating both HRS § 291E-61(a)(1) and (a)(3). We direct the District Court to file a corrected judgment that clearly reflects that Tuisamatatele was only convicted of violating HRS § 291E-61(a)(3), as a first offender under HRS § 291E-61(b)(1).
--------

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, May 28, 2014. On the briefs: Jonathan Burge
for Defendant-Appellant
Brian R. Vincent
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
City and County of Honolulu
for Plaintiff-Appellee

Chief Judge

Associate Judge

Associate Judge

Tuisamatatele's complaint charged him with OVUII, in violation of HRS § 291E-61(a)(1) (Supp. 2013) and/or (a)(3), and alleged that he was subject to sentencing as a first offender in accordance with HRS § 291E-61(b)(1) (Supp. 2013). The District Court granted Tuisamatatele's motion to dismiss the HRS § 291E-61(a)(1) portion of the charge, and Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawai'i only proceeded to trial on the alleged HRS § 291E-61(a)(3) violation.


Summaries of

State v. Tuisamatatele

INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
May 28, 2014
CAAP-12-0000903 (Haw. Ct. App. May. 28, 2014)
Case details for

State v. Tuisamatatele

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JERSIAHA F.L. TUISAMATATELE…

Court:INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

Date published: May 28, 2014

Citations

CAAP-12-0000903 (Haw. Ct. App. May. 28, 2014)