Summary
This Intermediate Court of Appeals summary disposition order addresses a pro se petitioner's appeal from the denial of his Fifth Rule 40 petition for post-conviction relief. The petitioner argued that, under State v. Obrero, he was entitled to a grand jury indictment rather than a complaint-based prosecution. Citing State v. Bautista, the court held that Obrero does not apply retroactively and that defendants raising such challenges for the first time in a Rule 40 petition are foreclosed from overturning their convictions. Consequently, the circuit court's denial of the petition was affirmed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether State v. Obrero applies retroactively to bar relief in a Rule 40 post‑conviction petition challenging a conviction based on a charging instrument.
Holdings
- The Circuit Court's order denying the Fifth Rule 40 petition is affirmed; Cooper is not entitled to relief because Obrero does not apply retroactively to convictions already entered.
Key quotations
“Accordingly, we conclude that Cooper is not entitled to relief.”
Factual background
Cooper was charged in September 1999 with murder in the second degree under Hawaii Revised Statutes § 707‑701.5, was tried by jury, convicted, and sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole.
Procedural history
Cooper filed a petition for post‑conviction relief under HRPP Rule 40 challenging the charging instrument. The Circuit Court denied the petition on October 3, 2023. Cooper appealed the denial.