State v. Bautista

153 Hawai‘i 284

535 P.3d 1029

STATE of Hawai‘i, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Rommel L. BAUTISTA, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

SCWC-21-0000395

Supreme Court of Hawai‘i.

September 13, 2023

Benjamin E. Lowenthal, Wailuku, for petitioner

Gerald K. Enriques, for respondent

RECKTENWALD, C.J., McKENNA, AND EDDINS, JJ., CIRCUIT JUDGE CHANG AND CIRCUIT JUDGE CASTAGNETTI, APPOINTED BY REASON OF VACANCIES

OPINION OF THE COURT BY EDDINS, J.

I.

This criminal case involves a jurisdiction challenge and a sentencing challenge.

Rommel Bautista argues that the State of Hawai‘i must refile a complaint in circuit court after a district court finds probable cause to support a felony and commits a case to circuit court. The State only filed a district court complaint, Bautista's argument goes, so the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We disagree.

We hold that if the State files a complaint in district court, and the district court lawfully commits the case to circuit court, then the circuit court has jurisdiction.

Relying on State v. Obrero, 151 Hawai‘i 472, 517 P.3d 755 (2022), Bautista challenges the circuit court's power to act another way. But Obrero has limited retroactive effect, so Bautista's Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 801-1 (2014) attack comes too late.

Bautista also argues that the circuit court improperly imposed two consecutive sentences. Because the circuit court did not provide adequate independent grounds to impose each consecutive sentence, we remand for resentencing.

II.

The State filed a district court complaint against Rommel Bautista. The complaint alleged seven violent crimes, including attempted murder in the second degree. The victim was Bautista's wife.

The District Court of the Second Circuit held a preliminary hearing. It found probable cause to support each count. Then the court confirmed bail and committed the case to the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit.

No circuit court complaint was filed. At his arraignment in circuit court, Bautista pled not guilty.

About five months after the State charged him, Bautista and the State reached a plea deal. Bautista pled no contest to three counts, all class C felonies: assault in the second degree ( HRS § 707-711(1)(a) (2014 & Supp. 2018)), terroristic threatening in the first degree ( HRS § 707-716(1)(e) (2014)), and abuse of a family or household member in the presence of a minor ( HRS § 709-906(1) and (9) (2014 & Supp. 2019)). Per the plea agreement, the State dropped the attempted murder charge ( HRS § 705-500(2) (2014) and § 707-701.5 (2014 & Supp. 2018)), the assault in the first degree HRS § 707-710(1) (2014) charge, and two counts of abuse of a family or household member by strangulation ( HRS § 709-906(1) and (8) (2014 & Supp. 2019)). There were no sentencing terms in the plea agreement. Bautista could seek probation. The State could seek any lawful sentence. The circuit court accepted Bautista's no contest pleas.

Two months later, the court held a sentencing hearing. Due to the pandemic, Bautista did not appear in court for his sentencing. He appeared via video link from the Maui Community Correctional Center. His wife, parents and sister sat in the courtroom, supporting him. The court asked Bautista a series of questions regarding his right to be present in court. Bautista consented to the arrangement, agreeing that the court could "conduct [the] sentencing hearing and impose sentence by video conference." See Hawai‘i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 43(e)(3).

After the colloquy, the court indicates it read the presentence diagnosis and report it had ordered per HRS § 706-601 (2014 & Supp. 2016). The court also reviewed supportive letters from Bautista's family members, co-workers and supervisor at a Maui hotel. Bautista's wife writes: "The incident with [my husband] did not have any lasting effects on me. The only effect it has had on our son is that his father is gone and he misses his father. Please we ask for your help and kindness to lessen him years in jail." She adds, "This was the very first time he ever hit me. ... I don't think he was serious that he wanted to kill me, he only said that because he thought I had a relationship with another man and he wanted to pressure me to admit it. ... I still love my husband and despite what happened that night I feel safe with him if he could be on probation and be given another chance."

The court listens to the lawyers. The prosecution wants consecutive sentences, an aggregate 15-year term of imprisonment. Bautista wants probation.

After the lawyers’ arguments, the court addresses Bautista: "Mr. Bautista, you know, what's worse than a jealous man is a drunk, jealous man. And that night you were drinking tequila, and you were drinking a lot of tequila, and you went off on your wife." The court describes the violent event and comments:

"Your six-year-old, who was there the whole time, saw all this, saw all this." Bautista's attorney interjects, clarifying that Bautista's son only "saw the beginning of it from the living room." "Well, he saw a portion of it," the court retorts. The court expresses concern about the impacts to children who are present during acts of domestic violence. Then the court says, "You know, there was no part of your wife's body that was not untouched." The court describes her injuries: "facial bruising," "a collapsed lung," and a "fracture to not one rib but three different ribs." The court adds, "And I think the only reason you stopped was perhaps because your father was pounding on the front door." "[T]his gave an opportunity for your wife to get out of the house with the six-year-old, your son, to call a friend to pick her up, where she went to the police station that night and then later on to the hospital."

Next, the court refers to a letter Bautista composed, "You know, Mr. Bautista, your statement to the Court that you wrote was: ‘I'd like to spread my wings, fly high again, and catch my ... dreams.’ " Then the court remarks, "Sure sounds like a caged bird to me. Well, I know Big Bird, Angry Birds, and jailbirds. And you know what we do with jailbirds?" "No," answers Bautista. "We clip their wings and we keep them locked up in cages."

Then the court comments, "The Court is aware that I could possibly put you on probation or give you concurrent sentences, but the Court is aware that this is a very severe case." The court says it "considered all the sentencing options and alternatives," and that it listened to Bautista's attorney's arguments, heard Bautista's statement, and read the letters submitted by his family. Bautista has no criminal record, the Court recognizes. Next it says, "I think you were kind of like a -- this all pent up inside of you and exploded that night." "So these offenses are so serious you could have killed your wife. ... You know, she needs to protect you -- she needs to be protected. Your son needs to be protected. The community needs to be protected from this kind of behavior." The court mentions that Bautista's wife feared for her life, "[a]nd though maybe now she has changed her tune, she thought that night that she was going to die." Then the court announces its sentence:

So the Court feels that there's a need for respect for the law and you need to be justly punished and afford adequate deterrence to everyone. Will five years protect her and your family? I don't think so. Will ten years protect your wife and your family? I don't think so. Will fifteen years protect your wife and your family? Perhaps.

The court sentenced Bautista to consecutive five-year terms on each C felony count for a total of fifteen years. Later, Bautista moved to reconsider. The court denied that motion. Bautista appealed to the ICA.

On appeal, he initially, raised one issue - his sentence. He argued that the circuit court imposed consecutive terms "without an adequate rationale" and that the sentence was "based in part on the dismissed charges." Later, Bautista amended his brief to include jurisdictional arguments. Nearly one year after the filing of the opening brief, the ICA ordered supplemental briefing to address the potential impact of Obrero.

The ICA rejected Bautista's jurisdiction and sentencing challenges. It affirmed the circuit court.

Bautista applied for cert, and we accepted.

III.

A.

Without jurisdiction, a court has no power to act. "Jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority on the part of the court to hear and judicially determine and dispose of the cause pending before it." Schwartz v. State, 136 Hawai‘i 258, 262, 361 P.3d 1161, 1165 (2015) (cleaned up).

Bautista argues the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit lacks jurisdiction for two reasons. First, unless there's a circuit court charging document, this court's precedent divests the circuit court of jurisdiction. Second, Hawai‘i court rules require a circuit court complaint, not a district court complaint, to advance a case in circuit court.

Neither argument sways us. The circuit court had jurisdiction.

Chiefly citing State v. Kaulia, 128 Hawai‘i 479, 291 P.3d 377 (2013) and Obrero, Bautista's first argument maintains that "[t]he precedent established by this Court requires the prosecution to invoke the circuit court's jurisdiction by filing a charging document in the circuit court." Bautista argues jurisdiction "must be averred in a charging document." One that's filed in the court that actually hears and resolves the case.

Kaulia doesn't help Bautista. There the State charged the defendant with a misdemeanor. At his district court arraignment, Kaulia received a district court complaint, pled not guilty and demanded a jury trial. The court committed the case to circuit court. Later in circuit court, the State moved to amend the complaint, reducing the charge to a petty misdemeanor. The court granted the motion. Since the amended offense no longer permitted a jury trial, the circuit court remanded to district court. Down there, the State forgot to file the amended complaint. Kaulia was...