Oral Argument Before the State of Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals — CAAP-14-0000391
CAAP-14-0000391, Wednesday, April 12, 2017, 10 a.m.
STATE OF HAWAII, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. SHAWN D. VISINTIN, Defendant-Appellant.
The above-captioned case has been set for argument on the merits at:
Supreme Court Courtroom
Ali`iolani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee:
Tracy Murakami, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Attorney for Defendant-Appellant:
Daniel G. Hempey of Hempey & Meyers LLP
COURT: Nakamura, C.J., Leonard and Ginoza, JJ.
A police officer testified that he observed Plaintiff-Appellant Shawn D. Visintin (Visintin) run across a highway at about 2:40 a.m. and into the entrance area of a building that appeared to be closed. According to the officer, he asked Visintin for identification and saw a weapons permit in Visintin’s wallet. The officer asked Visintin if he had any weapons, and Visintin said that he had a handgun. During a pat down of Visintin, the officer recovered a handgun.
Visintin was arrested, posted bail though a bail bond later that day, and was directed to appear in court at a future date. Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawai`i (State) did not file criminal charges against Visintin before his appearance date. In accordance with the established procedure of the District Court of the Fifth Circuit (District Court), Visintin was apparently placed on a “calendar call list” along with other arrestees who had posted bail but for whom no charges had been filed before their appearance date. According to the State, on Visintin’s appearance date, the District Court announced that individuals on the calendar call list were free to go, that cash bail posted would be refunded, and that bail bonds would be discharged.
Seven months later, Visintin was charged by indictment with place to keep pistol or revolver and failure to register a firearm. Visintin subsequently moved to dismiss the indictment for violation of his speedy trial rights, the right to bail, and the right to due process. He also moved to suppress evidence obtained as the result of his encounter with the police officer. The Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit (Circuit Court) denied both motions. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Visintin entered a conditional plea of no contest to the charge of place to keep pistol or revolver, reserving the right to appeal the Circuit Court’s orders denying his motions to dismiss and to suppress evidence.
On appeal, Visintin argues that the Circuit Court erred in denying his motion to dismiss. Among other things, Visintin challenges the Circuit Court’s ruling that the time between his release pursuant to the “calendar call list” procedure and the filing of his indictment was excludable in computing the speedy trial time limits set forth in Hawaiʻi Rules of Penal Procedure Rule 48. Visintin also argues that the Circuit Court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence because he contends the police officer’s stop and demand for identification were illegal.