State v. Shimabukuro, 100 Haw. 324

Summary

The Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi held that the prior DUI convictions required for a habitual DUI conviction under Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes § 291-4.4 must be valid. Applying the rule of lenity, the court concluded that a conviction previously vacated as unconstitutionally obtained could not count toward the required three prior convictions. The court vacated the habitual DUI conviction and remanded for entry of judgment on the included DUI offense and resentencing.

Holdings

1. The term "convicted" in HRS § 291-4.4 refers to prior valid DUI convictions; a conviction that has been vacated as unconstitutionally obtained cannot serve as one of the three predicate convictions required for habitual DUI.
2. The circuit court erred in denying Shimabukuro's motion to dismiss the habitual-DUI charge because, after one prior conviction was vacated, he lacked three valid prior DUI convictions.
3. The current DUI offense is included in the habitual-DUI offense, and the circuit court must enter judgment of conviction for the included DUI offense and sentence Shimabukuro accordingly.

Questions Presented

1. Whether HRS § 291-4.4 requires the three prior DUI convictions used to charge habitual DUI to be valid convictions.
2. Whether the term "convicted" in HRS § 291-4.4 is ambiguous and therefore subject to the rule of lenity.
3. Whether the defendant's conviction for the current DUI offense could be entered as a conviction for the included offense after the habitual-DUI charge was dismissed.

Disposition

vacated