State of Hawai'i v. Amanaki L. Veikoso

Summary

The Supreme Court of Hawai'i affirmed Amanaki L. Veikoso's conviction for habitual driving under the influence. The court held that prior DUI convictions count under HRS § 291-4.4 unless they have been expunged, reversed, or set aside, and that a defendant may not collaterally attack counseled prior convictions based on allegedly invalid guilty pleas in proceedings for a subsequent habitual DUI offense. Such challenges must instead be raised through a direct attack or post-conviction proceedings under Hawai'i Rules of Penal Procedure Rule 40.

Holdings

1. A defendant may not collaterally attack prior counseled DUI convictions on the basis that they were obtained as the result of allegedly invalid guilty pleas; challenges must be raised through direct attack or post-conviction relief under HRPP Rule 40.
2. The term 'conviction' means any judgment or plea that has not been expunged by pardon, reversed, or set aside at the time a defendant is found guilty of the habitual DUI charge.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to dismiss the habitual DUI charge when the defendant offered evidence that predicate DUI convictions were constitutionally invalid.
2. Whether State v. Shimabukuro controlled the outcome.
3. Whether a defendant may collaterally attack prior counseled DUI convictions based on allegedly invalid guilty pleas in a subsequent habitual DUI proceeding.

Disposition

affirmed