Oral Argument Before the Hawaii Supreme Court
No. SCWC-11-0000085 Thursday, December 6, 2012, 9:30 a.m.
STATE OF HAWAI`I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. STEPHEN CRAMER, JR., Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.
Attorney for Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant:
Attorney for Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee:
Artemio C. Baxa, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
The above-captioned case has been set for argument on the merits at:
Henry Perrine Baldwin Auditorium
Henry Perrine Baldwin High School
1650 Kaahumanu Avenue
Wailuku, HI 96793
NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 09/06/12.
COURT: MER, CJ; PAN, SRA, SSM, & RWP, JJ.
Petitioner/defendant-appellant Stephen Cramer, Jr., filed an application for a writ of certiorari to review the June 1, 2012 Judgment on Appeal of the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA), entered pursuant to its May 3, 2012 Summary Disposition Order (SDO). The ICA’s judgment affirmed the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit’s (circuit court) January 11, 2011 Judgment of Conviction and Sentence, which convicted Cramer of three counts: (1) Promoting a Dangerous Drug in the Second Degree, in violation of Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 712-1242(1)(b)(i), (2) Prohibited Acts Related to Drug Paraphernalia, in violation of HRS § 329-43.5(a), and (3) Promoting a Detrimental Drug in the Third Degree, in violation of HRS § 712-1249(1). The circuit court sentenced Cramer to incarceration for ten years on count one, five years on count two, and thirty days on count three, all counts to run concurrently.
Cramer challenges his sentence on the ground that he was not allowed his counsel of choice at his sentencing hearing. At the hearing, new counsel appeared on behalf of Cramer, moved to substitute for Cramer’s court-appointed counsel, and requested a three week continuance. The respondent/plaintiff-appellee State of Hawai`i responded that it was ready to proceed with sentencing. The circuit court denied new counsel’s motion as untimely and proceeded with sentencing. In his application, Cramer argues that the circuit court violated his constitutional right to counsel of his choice when it denied the motion.