Opinion
Nos. CAAP–13–0000065 CAAP–13–0000111.
2013-10-23
Lonnell Reginald WIDEMAN, Petitioner–Appellant, v. STATE of Hawai‘i, Respondent–Appellee, and Lonnell Reginald Wideman, Petitioner–Appellant, v. Hawai‘i Paroling Authority, Respondent–Appellee.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Special Proceedings Prisoner No. 12–1–0045 (Criminal No. 85–1261)). Lonnell Reginald Wideman, on the briefs, Petitioner–Appellant pro se. Richard W. Stacey, Diane K. Taira, Deputy Attorneys General, on the briefs, for Respondent–Appellee.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (Special Proceedings Prisoner No. 12–1–0045 (Criminal No. 85–1261)).
Lonnell Reginald Wideman, on the briefs, Petitioner–Appellant pro se. Richard W. Stacey, Diane K. Taira, Deputy Attorneys General, on the briefs, for Respondent–Appellee.
FOLEY, Presiding J., LEONARD and REIFURTH, JJ.
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
Lonnell Reginald Wideman appeals from a January 14, 2013 “Order Denying And Dismissing Petition To Vacate, Set Aside, Or Correct Judgment Or To Release Petition From Custody” entered in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit court).
The Honorable Karen S.S. Ahn presided.
Wideman's Hawai‘i Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 40 petition (Rule 40) contended the Hawai‘i Paroling Authority (HPA) unlawfully revoked his parole for not reporting contact with law enforcement to his parole officer. Wideman's Rule 40 petition also alleged various procedural irregularities by the HPA as well as ineffectiveness of counsel. Wideman makes similar points and arguments on appeal.
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, as well as the relevant statutory and case law, we conclude Wideman's appeal is without merit.
The record in this case shows Wideman failed to report contact with law enforcement in violation of a condition of his parole. The record also indicates his parole revocation proceedings were pursuant to the applicable statutes and rules that govern such proceedings. In addition, there is nothing in the record to suggest his counsel was ineffective.
The circuit court dismissal and denial of Wideman's Rule 40 petition as patently frivolous and without a trace of support in either the record or evidence submitted by Wideman, or in his allegations and arguments, was not erroneous.
Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the January 14, 2013 “Order Denying And Dismissing Petition To Vacate, Set Aside, Or Correct Judgment Or To Release Petition From Custody” entered in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit is affirmed.