I enjoy appellate work, as it gives me a chance to focus on writing, research, and logic. I have had a variety of successes:
In Acupan v. Nedeljkovic, CAAP-20-000192, I secured an order finding that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to set aside a default judgment against my client.
In State v. Bukoski, 142 Haw. 151, I secured reversal of a client’s conviction for two of three counts of Inattention to Driving. The court found that the three counts had “merged” under HRS ยง 701-109(e), and my client could only be convicted for a single count as a result.
In State v. Ayres, 149 Haw. 206, I got my client’s conviction reduced from a misdemeanor to a petty misdemeanor because the trial court mistakenly allowed traffic citations into evidence without affording an opportunity to cross-examine the author of those documents. This violated the Constitution’s Confrontation Clause.
In In the Interest of IK, JK, SK, RK, and KK, CAAP-20-0000737, I secured reversal of a trial court order terminating a parent’s parental rights pursuant to the Child Protective Act. The Intermediate Court of Appeals determined that the trial court failed to adequately evaluate the permanent placement prior to terminating the parent’s rights. The appellate court also concluded that the trial court clearly erred by failing to recognize my client’s progress in addressing issues giving rise to the proceeding.
In Tandal, et al. v. Marriot International, CAAP-19-0000529, I secured an immediate interlocutory stay of a civil discovery sanction. I argued that the trial court’s sanction violated the privilege against self-incrimination, and the Intermediate Court of Appeals appears to have agreed by issuing an immediate stay of the order.
The Court’s final decision ultimately ordered that the discovery sanction was an abuse of discretion, as there was “substantial justification for asserting [my client’s] Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination because of the way the plaintiffs’ discovery requests were worded.”
In Harbor Mall, LLC v. Jasper Properties, LLC, CAAP-21-0000209, I had an order granting summary judgment against my client overturned. The Intermediate Court of Appeals held that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether my client was entitled to an “easement by estoppel.”