Summary
The Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawaii issued a per curiam order dismissing Grant Marshall's criminal appeal due to lack of jurisdiction. The court determined that the notice of appeal was filed more than thirty days after the entry of the judgment of conviction and sentence, failing to meet statutory and procedural deadlines. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without prejudice to Marshall's pending post-conviction relief petition, and all pending motions are terminated.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the notice of appeal was timely filed under Hawaii Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 4(b)(1) and HRS §641‑11.
- Whether the appellate court must dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Holdings
- The notice of appeal was untimely because it was filed more than thirty days after entry of the judgment; therefore the appeal is dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
Key quotations
“"Compliance with the requirement of timely filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional, and we must dismiss an appeal on our motion if we lack jurisdiction."”
Factual background
Grant Marshall was convicted and sentenced by the Circuit Court on August 16, 2023. He filed a notice of appeal on May 9, 2024, well beyond the thirty‑day filing deadline required by Hawaii appellate procedure. He also raised an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, which the appellate court found the record insufficient to consider.
Procedural history
Defendant-Appellant Grant Marshall filed a Notice of Appeal on May 9, 2024, more than thirty days after the August 16, 2023 judgment of conviction and sentence entered by the Circuit Court, Third Circuit. The Intermediate Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for untimeliness and noted the record was insufficient to address his ineffective assistance claim.