Opinion
No. CAAP–13–0000002.
05-29-2015
STATE of Hawai‘i, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Reed W. SAILOLA, Defendant–Appellant.
Jonathan Burge, on the briefs, for Defendant–Appellant. Brian R. Vincent, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, City and Council of Honolulu, on the briefs, for Plaintiff–Appellant.
Jonathan Burge, on the briefs, for Defendant–Appellant.
Brian R. Vincent, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, City and Council of Honolulu, on the briefs, for Plaintiff–Appellant.
FUJISE, Presiding Judge, REIFURTH and GINOZA, JJ.
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
On December 6, 2012, after a consolidated stipulated fact hearing on his motion to suppress evidence and trial, the District Court of the First Circuit, Honolulu Division (District Court) convicted and sentenced Defendant–Appellant Reed W. Sailola (Sailola) of Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of an Intoxicant in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 291E–61(a)(3) (Supp.2014).
The Honorable David Lo presided.
In bringing this appeal, Sailola alleges the District Court erred in denying his Motion to Suppress for three reasons. First, Sailola contends that he was inadequately advised of his rights before deciding whether to take a breath or blood alcohol test; second that this decision was made without benefit of warnings mandated by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) ; and third, that his statutory right to counsel under HRS § 803–9 (2014) was violated.
These arguments are identical to those presented to and rejected by this court in State v. Won, 134 Hawai‘i 59, 332 P.3d 661 (App .2014), cert. granted, 2014 WL 2881259 (Jun. 24, 2014). Based on Won, we conclude that the District Court properly denied Sailola's motion to suppress and we affirm his conviction and sentence under HRS § 291E–61(a)(3).