Skip to Content

Oral Argument Before the Hawaii Supreme Court — SCWC-18-0000755

(Amended 05/11/21)

No. SCWC-18-0000755, Thursday, July 1, 2021, 2 p.m.

STATE OF HAWAI I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ARTEMIO Y. AGDINAOAY, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

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

The oral argument was held remotely and live-streamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts.

Attorney for Petitioner Agdinaoay:

William H. Jameson, Deputy Public Defender

Attorney for Respondent State:

Donn Fudo, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

NOTE: Order accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 03/31/21.

NOTE: Amended Notice of Setting for Oral Argument due to rescheduling from 05/20/21 at 2:00 p.m. to 07/01/21 at 2:00 p.m., filed 05/11/21.

COURT: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.

Listen to the entire audio recording in mp3 format ]

Brief Description:

This appeal arises from Petitioner/Defendant Artemio Yablag Agdinaoay’s conviction for Violation of a Temporary Restraining Order in violation of Hawai i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 586-4. In addition to sentencing Agdinaoay to 181 days of imprisonment with credit for time served, the Family Court of the First Circuit also ordered that Agdinaoay undergo domestic violence intervention (DVI). Agdinaoay filed a motion for reconsideration, challenging the requirement of DVI. The family court granted in part and denied in part his motion, concluding that DVI was mandatory under HRS § 586-4 but providing Agdinaoay with more time to complete DVI after he served his term of imprisonment. Agdinaoay appealed, and the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) affirmed the sentence.

On certiorari, Agdinaoay argues that DVI can only be imposed as a condition of probation, and that probation was not available as a sentence since his term of incarceration exceeded six months, the maximum permitted as a condition of probation. Accordingly, he contends that the ICA erred in concluding that the family court did not abuse its discretion when it sentenced him to undergo DVI in addition to his 181-day term of imprisonment.