Skip to Main Nav Skip to Main Content Skip to Footer Content

Oral Argument Before the Hawaii Supreme Court

No.SCWC-15-0000935, Wednesday, August 23, 2017, 10 a.m.

STATE OF HAWAI I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. DAWN MARIE ANZALONE, Petitioner/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 Petitioner:

Matthew S. Kohm

Attorney for Respondent:

Renee Ishikawa Delizo, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 07/10/17.


[ Listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format ]

Brief Description:

On June 2, 2015, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee the State of Hawai i (the State) charged Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant Dawn Marie Anzalone (Anzalone) with one count of custodial interference in the first degree in violation of Hawai i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 707-726(1)(a). Pursuant to an arrest warrant issued by the Family Court of the Second Circuit (family court), Anzalone was arrested in Florida and extradited back to Maui, Hawai i on June 11, 2015. Anzalone subsequently entered a plea of no contest to the charge against her.

At the sentencing hearing, the State requested that Anzalone pay restitution for the costs of her extradition pursuant to HRS § 621-9(b). Over Anzalone’s objection, the family court granted the State’s request and ordered Anzalone to, inter alia, pay restitution for extradition costs as a condition of probation and as a freestanding order. On appeal, the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) held that while extradition costs could not be imposed as restitution, the family court had the authority to require Anzalone to pay extradition costs as a condition of probation pursuant to HRS § 621-9(b). Accordingly, the ICA ordered the family court, on remand, to modify its judgment to reflect that extradition costs were being imposed pursuant to HRS § 621-9(b), and not as restitution.

Anzalone’s application for writ of certiorari presents one question for review: whether, under the facts of the present case, the ICA gravely erred in holding that the family court could order Anzalone to pay extradition costs as a condition of probation pursuant to HRS § 621-9(b).