Summary
The Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi affirmed the denial of James Adams's HRPP Rule 40 petition challenging his convictions for sexual assault. The court held that the circuit court had jurisdiction despite the family-court designation and filing location, and that Adams waived the statute-of-limitations defense by entering his no-contest plea. The court also rejected Adams's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the family court had subject matter jurisdiction over Counts III-VI (sexual assault of an unrelated child)
- Whether the circuit court had jurisdiction over Adams's Rule 40 petition filed in the wrong court division
- Whether the statute of limitations for Counts III-VI was waived by Adams's no-contest plea
- Whether Adams received ineffective assistance of counsel regarding the statute of limitations defense
Holdings
- Even assuming the family court lacked jurisdiction, the circuit court judge acting in her capacity as a circuit court judge properly exercised jurisdiction over those counts, making any error harmless.
- The circuit court had jurisdiction because family courts are divisions of circuit courts, and Judge Nakamura properly exercised jurisdiction in his capacity as a circuit court judge.
- Adams waived the statute of limitations defense by entering a knowing and voluntary no-contest plea, as statute of limitations is a non-jurisdictional defense waived by guilty or no-contest pleas.
- Trial counsel's performance was within the range of competence demanded; failure to advise on statute of limitations had an obvious tactical basis in obtaining a favorable plea agreement.
Key quotations
“Because Adams's claims are without merit, we affirm the circuit court's order.” (103 Hawai'i at 214)
“We therefore hold that, notwithstanding any lack of jurisdiction on the part of the family court over Counts III, IV, V, and VI of the indictment, Judge Amano, in her capacity as a circuit court judge, properly exercised jurisdiction over those counts.” (103 Hawai'i at 215)
“As previously stated, a no contest plea made knowingly and voluntarily precludes a defendant from later asserting any nonjurisdictional claims on appeal.” (103 Hawai'i at 216)
“No express waiver through an on-the-record colloquy was necessary.” (103 Hawai'i at 216)
Factual background
Adams was indicted for sexual assault of two minors (his daughter and an unrelated girl). He pleaded no contest to a reduced charge of second-degree sexual assault on his daughter and four counts of third-degree sexual assault on the unrelated girl. He received concurrent sentences. He later filed a Rule 40 petition claiming lack of jurisdiction over the unrelated girl's counts, improper filing venue, statute of limitations bar, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
Procedural history
Petitioner entered a no-contest plea to multiple sexual assault charges in family court, was sentenced to concurrent terms, did not appeal, then filed a Rule 40 petition for post-conviction relief in circuit court, which denied the petition. He appealed to the Supreme Court of Hawai'i.