From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Wesly

Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawai‘i.
Mar 25, 2015
347 P.3d 1021 (Haw. Ct. App. 2015)

Opinion

No. CAAP–14–0000812.

03-25-2015

STATE of Hawai‘i, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Martin Peter Alfred WESLY, Defendant–Appellant.

Martin Peter Alfred Wesly, on the briefs, Defendant–Appellant Pro Se. Stephen K. Tsushima, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, City and County of Honolulu, on the briefs, for Plaintiff–Appellee.


Martin Peter Alfred Wesly, on the briefs, Defendant–Appellant Pro Se.

Stephen K. Tsushima, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, City and County of Honolulu, on the briefs, for Plaintiff–Appellee.

NAKAMURA, Chief Judge, LEONARD and GINOZA, JJ.

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

Defendant–Appellant Martin Peter Alfred Wesly (Wesly) appeals pro se from the Notice of Entry of Judgment and/or Order and Plea/Judgment (Judgment) entered against him and in favor of the State, on April 7, 2014, by the District Court of the First Circuit, ‘Ewa Division (District Court), on the traffic infraction of Noncompliance with Speed Limit in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 291C–102(a)(1) (2007).

The Honorable Alvin K. Nishimura presided. Although no transcript was provided by the appellant, it appears that a different judge presided over Wesly's oral motion to dismiss.

--------

On appeal, Wesly contends that the District Court erred when it denied his motion to dismiss this case on the grounds that his last name was incorrectly spelled “Wesley” rather than “Wesly” on the speeding ticket. In addition, Wesly argues, inter alia, that there was insufficient evidence to support the District Court's Judgment against him.

The State contends that Wesly's conviction must be affirmed because Wesly failed to order transcripts and thus failed to furnish this court with a sufficient record to positively demonstrate the alleged errors. We agree.

Hawai‘i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 10 imposes an obligation on the appellant to order transcripts of oral proceedings before the trial court when the “appellant desires to raise any point on appeal that requires consideration of [such] oral proceedings[.]” HRAP Rule 10(b)(1)(A) ; see Bettencourt v. Bettencourt, 80 Hawai‘i 225, 230, 909 P.2d 553, 558 (1995) ( “[t]he burden is upon appellant in an appeal to show error by reference to matters in the record, and he or she has the responsibility of providing an adequate transcript”) (citation, internal quotation marks, and brackets omitted). Here, no transcripts were requested for Wesly's appeal. Thus, Wesly has failed to meet his burden of providing an adequate record to show error in the denial of his oral motion and/or the sufficiency of the testimonial evidence presented to the District Court. HRAP Rule 10(b)(1)(A) ; Bettencourt, 80 Hawai‘i at 230, 909 P.2d at 558.

Accordingly, the District Court's April 7, 2014 Judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Wesly

Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawai‘i.
Mar 25, 2015
347 P.3d 1021 (Haw. Ct. App. 2015)
Case details for

State v. Wesly

Case Details

Full title:STATE of Hawai‘i, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Martin Peter Alfred WESLY…

Court:Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawai‘i.

Date published: Mar 25, 2015

Citations

347 P.3d 1021 (Haw. Ct. App. 2015)
135 Hawaii 215