No. SCAP-23-0000453, Tuesday, March 25, 2025, 2 p.m.

CASEY CAMERON EASON, Petitioner-Appellee, vs. STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondent-Appellant.

[ Listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format ]

The above-captioned case has been set for oral argument on the merits at:

Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali‘iōlani Hale, 2^nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

The oral argument will also be livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts and ‘Ōlelo at olelo.org/tv-schedule/.

Attorney for Respondent-Appellant STATE OF HAWAI‘I:
     Charles E. Murray III, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

Attorney for Petitioner-Appellee CASEY CAMERON EASON:
     Catherine E. Gibson

NOTE: Order granting application for transfer, filed 05/06/24.

COURT: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, JJ.

Brief Description:

In 2004, Defendant-Appellee Casey Cameron Eason (Eason) pled no contest to Murder in the Second Degree under Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 707-701.5 during a March 31, 2004 hearing in the Circuit Court for the Third Circuit (Circuit Court). 

In 2021, Eason filed a Hawai‘i Rule of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 40 Petition for post-conviction relief.  On various grounds, he claims that his plea on March 31, 2004 was not knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily made.  By this time, no transcript or verbatim record existed from the 2004 hearing.

Nearly twenty years after Eason was sentenced, the Circuit Court granted Eason’s Rule 40 Petition.  The court held the State did not meet its burden to show that Eason’s change of plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made; and that Eason’s due process rights were violated because there had not been an affirmative determination of Eason’s fitness prior to accepting his no contest plea.  The Circuit Court also held that, although Eason previously filed Rule 40 petitions, there are extraordinary circumstances in this case sufficient to warrant overriding Rule 40’s waiver provision.

Eason’s conviction was vacated and he was returned to “no bail” status until further order of the Court.

The State appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals, and this case was then transferred to the supreme court.  The State asserts the following:

1. The Circuit Court erred as a matter of law by failing to dismiss [Eason’s Rule 40 Petition] for violation of HRS § 602-11 and for lack of jurisdiction.
2. The Circuit Court erred as a matter of law and in its findings of fact in deciding that there was a violation of Eason’s due process rights due to the absence of an ‘on the record’ determination of fitness prior to the change of plea on March 31, 2004. . . .
3. The Circuit Court erred as a matter of law and in its findings of fact by failing to conclude that Eason waived the claims in his [Rule 40 Petition by failing to raise them in his earlier petitions].
4. The Circuit Court erred as a matter of law and in its findings of fact by shifting the burden to the State, as there was more than a ‘silent or minimal record’ of the change of plea hearing. . . .
5. The Circuit Court erred as a matter of law and in its findings of fact in determining that Eason’s change of plea on March 31, 2004 was not voluntary[.]