STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ASHLEY VINCENT GAETA, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

Listen to the audio recording

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

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

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

Attorney for Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant ASHLEY VINCENT GAETA:
Jason R. Kwiat of Schlueter, Kwiat & Kennedy LLLP

Attorney for Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee STATE OF HAWAI‘I:
Frederick M. Macapinlac, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Judge Karin L. Holma due to a vacancy, filed 12/16/25.

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 12/31/25.

COURT: McKenna, Acting C.J., Eddins, Ginoza, and Devens, JJ., and Circuit Judge Holma, assigned by reason of vacancy.

Brief Description:

Defendant Vincent Gaeta (Gaeta) was initially charged via indictment with two counts of sexual assault in the second degree and one count of attempted sexual assault in the second degree against the complaining witness (CW). The indictment was later superseded by a complaint to add an additional count, sexual assault in the fourth degree for knowingly exposing genitals in a manner likely to alarm or cause fear of injury. After reaching a plea agreement with the State, Gaeta pled no contest to one count of sexual assault in the fourth degree in exchange for a dismissal of the other charges with prejudice.

At sentencing, Gaeta sought a deferred acceptance of his no contest plea (DANC). The circuit court accepted the no contest plea and denied the DANC motion based on “the impact on the CW.” Gaeta appealed, arguing the circuit court therefore improperly considered dismissed charges alleging sexual penetration as well as a lack of remorse. The ICA affirmed the circuit court’s denial of the DANC motion.

The same issues were raised on certiorari. This court also ordered supplemental briefing on whether (1) plea agreements can override judicial precedent that prohibits consideration of dismissed charges and (2) lack of remorse can be considered in the no contest plea context.