Wilton v. State, 116 Haw. 106

Summary

The Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi reviewed the denial of Freedus W. Wilton II’s Hawaiʻi Rules of Penal Procedure Rule 40 petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The court held that the lower court applied an incorrect standard and improperly resolved factual issues without an evidentiary hearing regarding evidence of Wilton’s multiple sclerosis and inability to run. It vacated the Intermediate Court of Appeals judgment and the circuit court’s order and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

Holdings

1. To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show specific errors or omissions reflecting counsel's lack of skill, judgment, or diligence and that those errors or omissions resulted in the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense. A potentially meritorious defense is evaluated by its possible, not probable, effect on the decision maker; actual prejudice is not required.
2. A Rule 40 petition must receive an evidentiary hearing when its allegations, if taken as true, would entitle the petitioner to relief or could change the verdict, unless the claim is patently frivolous. Wilton's allegations and supporting affidavits stated a colorable ineffective-assistance claim.
3. The circuit court erred by weighing the affidavits and speculating about how the jury would assess the proposed evidence, including whether the evidence was consistent or inconsistent with the perpetrator's conduct and Wilton's other physical activities.
4. On the existing record, Wilton did not establish ineffective assistance based on his failure to testify because the Tachibana colloquy showed that he understood the decision whether to testify was his and that his waiver was knowing and voluntary.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the circuit court applied the correct Hawaiʻi standard for determining whether omitted evidence possibly impaired a potentially meritorious defense in a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
2. Whether Wilton's Rule 40 petition presented a colorable claim requiring an evidentiary hearing based on allegations that counsel failed to present evidence concerning his multiple sclerosis and inability to run.
3. Whether the circuit court improperly weighed the credibility and effect of proposed evidence instead of determining whether, if taken as true, the allegations could change the verdict.
4. Whether the record established ineffective assistance based on counsel's advice that Wilton not testify.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded