Preview:

***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI # I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-29725 21-DEC-2010 03:41 PM

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I ---o0o---

DAVID GARCIA, aka Howard Garcia, Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant vs. STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent/Respondent-Appellee

NO. SCWC-29725 CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (S.P.P. NO. 08-1-0012 (CR. NO. 96-1330)) DECEMBER 21, 2010 RECKTENWALD, C.J., NAKAYAMA, ACOBA, AND DUFFY, JJ., AND CIRCUIT JUDGE NACINO, ASSIGNED DUE TO A VACANCY OPINION OF THE COURT BY ACOBA, J. We hold that the recalculation by the Hawai#i Paroling Authority (HPA), of credit for pre-sentence detention (presentence credit) of Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant David Garcia, aka Howard Garcia (Petitioner), pursuant to State v.

***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI # I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

Tauiliili, 96 Hawai#i 195, 200, 29 P.3d 914, 919 (2001), that extended the earliest date at which Petitioner was eligible for release, did not violate (1) the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution; (2) due process under the United States Constitution or the Hawai#i Constitution; or (3) principles regarding the retroactive application of judicial decisions espoused by this court. We accepted Petitioner's

application for writ of certiorari (Application) in this case because (1) similar issues regarding the retroactive application of Tauiliili, have been previously raised to and rejected by this court,1 (2) there is no governing authoritative case regarding the retroactive application of Tauiliili inasmuch as the ICA's judgments in that regard have been by way of summary disposition orders, see Killion, 2009 WL 484411, at *1, and Garcia v. State, No. 29725, 2010 WL 2513357, at *1 (App. Jun. 23, 2010) (SDO), and (3) Tauiliili did not discuss whether applying that decision retroactively would violate the prohibition against ex post facto laws, due process, or principles regarding the retroactive application of judicial decisions, as espoused by this court. affirm the judgment of the ICA, see Garcia, 2010 WL 2513357, at *1, on the grounds set forth herein. We

In that case, this court affirmed the decision of the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) in Killion v. State, No. 29077, 2009 WL 484411, at *1 (App. Feb. 24, 2009) (SDO). Respondent/Respondent-Appellee State of Hawai #i (Respondent) cited to Killion in its opening brief to the ICA.

1

2

***FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI # I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***

I. A. The following essential matters, some verbatim, are from the record and the submissions of the parties. Hawai#i Administrative Rules (HAR)

Download Garcia v. State. ICA s.d.o., filed 06/23/2010.pdf

Hawaii Law