Gleason v. Administrative Director of the Courts

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
24-FEB-2023
08:03 AM
Dkt. 13 ODSLJ
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

YUKI GLEASON, Petitioner-Appellant, v.
ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COURTS, Respondent-Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
HONOLULU DIVISION
(CASE NO. 1DAA-22-00010)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
(By: Wadsworth, Presiding Judge, Nakasone and Chan, JJ.)
Upon review of the record, it appears that:

1. On January 12, 2023, the District Court of the

First Circuit, Honolulu Division (District Court) entered a

Notice of Entry of Judgment and/or Order and Plea/Judgment

(Notice) in Case No. 1DAA-22-00010. The Notice affirms the

August 5, 2022 Notice of Administrative Review Decision

(Revocation), entered by the Administrative Driver's License

Revocation Office, which sustained the revocation of Petitioner-

Appellant Yuki Gleason's (Gleason) driver's license.

2. On January 31, 2023, the District Court entered,

inter alia, a "Decision and Order Affirming Administrative

Revocation" (Written Order), which contains the District Court's

findings of fact and conclusions of law (FOFs and COLs) and

purports to affirm the Revocation, and a corresponding "Judgment
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

on Appeal" (Judgment), which purports to enter a judgment as to

the Written Order.

3. On February 2, 2023, Gleason filed a Notice of

Appeal from the Notice, creating Case No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX.

4. On February 16, 2023, Gleason filed a Notice of

Appeal from the Written Order, creating this appeal, Case No.

CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX.

5. The Notice is the operative final judgment in Case

No. 1DAA-22-00010, as it affirms the Revocation, and thereby ends

the proceedings, leaving nothing further to be accomplished.

Hawaii Revised Statutes § 641-1(a) (2016); Casumpang v. ILWU,

Local 142, 91 Hawai i 425, 426, 984 P.2d 1251, 1252 (1999).

Though the Written Order also purports to affirm the Revocation,

entry of the Judgment does not trigger a new period for

appealing. Casumpang, 91 Hawai i at 426, 984 P.2d at 1252;

Lotenschtein v. Stoebner Holdings, Inc., No. 26043, 2004 WL

1080215, at *1 (Haw. May 12, 2004) (Dismissal Order); Cannoles v.

Teach for Am. Agent, No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, 2019 WL 4391234, at *1

(App. Sept. 13, 2019) (Dismissal Order).

6. Gleason timely appealed from the Notice in Case No.

CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX; therefore, the court has jurisdiction in that

appeal. Hawai i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP)

Rule 4(a)(1).

7. Despite that Gleason now purports to appeal from

the Written Order, the time to appeal runs from entry of the

Notice; thus, the instant appeal is untimely. HRAP Rule 4(a)(1);

Grattafiori v. State, 79 Hawaii 10, 13, 897 P.2d 937, 940 (1995).

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

8. We construe the Written Order as the District

Court's separately stated FOFs and COLs, entered pursuant to

Rule 52(a) of the District Court Rules of Civil Procedure

(DCRCP). Gleason's appeal in Case No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX already

brings up for review said FOFs and COLs, per DCRCP Rule 52(a);

accordingly, the instant appeal is duplicative of the appeal in

Case No. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, and thus, superfluous.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Case No. CAAP-23-

0000077 is dismissed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, February 24, 2023.

/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Presiding Judge

/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Associate Judge

/s/ Derrick H.M. Chan
Associate Judge

3