Oral Argument Before the Hawaii Supreme Court–No. SCWC-17-0000427
No. SCWC-17-0000427, Wednesday, April 24, 2019, 8:45 a.m.
STATE OF HAWAI I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JAMES THOMPSON, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.
The above-captioned case has been set for argument on the merits at:
Supreme Court Courtroom
Aliiolani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813
Attorney for Petitioner:
Jon N. Ikenaga, Deputy Public Defender
Attorney for Appellee:
Loren J. Thomas, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Chief Justice Mark E. Recktenwald, filed 12/28/18.
NOTE: Order assigning Circuit Court Judge R. Mark Browning in place Recktenwald, C.J., recused, filed 01/03/19.
NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 01/31/19.
COURT: Nakayama, Acting C.J., McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ., and Circuit Court Judge Browning, in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused.
Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant James Thompson (“Thompson”) was convicted of seven counts of sexual assault in the first degree, two counts of attempted sexual assault in the first degree, eight counts of sexual assault in the third degree, two counts of kidnapping, and one count of sexual assault in the fourth degree. He was sentenced to concurrent extended sentences of life imprisonment with the possibility of parole as to nine counts, ten years’ imprisonment as to eight counts, twenty years’ imprisonment as to two counts, and one-year imprisonment as to one count (“2001 Sentence”). Thompson’s sentence was later vacated by the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii. In 2017, Thompson was resentenced to concurrent and consecutive terms of imprisonment that totaled sixty-one years (“2017 Sentence”).
The issues before this court are threefold: (1) whether the 2017 Sentence violates the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000); (2) whether the 2017 Sentence is “more severe” than the 2001 Sentence in violation of HRS § 706-609 and Thompson’s constitutional due process rights; and (3) whether the circuit court was precluded from granting the motion for consecutive terms under the law-of-the-case doctrine.