The Intermediate Court of Appeals of the State of Hawai‘i has affirmed the judgment against Kenneth Edward Texeira, effectively dismissing his appeal which raised fifteen separate points of error concerning pre-trial rulings and procedural issues related to his traffic violation case. The court’s decision hinged on a fundamental rule of criminal procedure: when a defendant enters a plea of “no contest” without formally reserving the right to appeal specific issues beforehand, they generally waive the right to challenge most prior rulings.
Texeira was appealing a judgment from the District Court of the Third Circuit, stemming from an incident where he was cited for Excessive Speeding under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 291C-105(a). On April 26, 2023, Texeira pleaded no contest as part of a plea agreement. This agreement saw him sentenced to a fine, community service, and a 30-day license suspension. In exchange, the State agreed to pursue only the minimum fine required by statute and drop a second charge of Excessive Speeding under HRS § 291C-105(b).
The Fifteen Points of Error
Texiera’s appeal was extensive, detailing fifteen points of error (POEs). These challenges covered a broad spectrum of the proceedings leading up to his plea. They included allegations that:
* The lower court improperly allowed the custodian of records for the Hawai‘i County Police Department to proceed with an “improperly filed civil motion to quash.”
* The State failed to meet basic procedural requirements, such as filing and serving a complaint, providing Texeira with a copy of the citation, or reading the charges aloud.
* The charges themselves were flawed because the State allegedly failed to allege the necessary mental state (*mens rea*).
* The court incorrectly denied his motion to stay proceedings to allow an interlocutory appeal.
* The State allegedly arraigned him for the first time during the trial phase.
* The State charged him under both HRS § 291C-105(a)(1) and (a)(2), despite the statute allegedly only allowing one charge.
* There was a discrepancy between the citation (alleging 81+ mph) and the charge (alleging 80+ mph).
* The court accepted his change of plea despite claims it was not “intelligent, knowing or voluntary.”
* The State failed to turn over discovery materials.
* The court allegedly misinformed him about his right to appeal.
* The judge allegedly made erroneous findings of fact and conclusions of law against him.
* The court failed to follow the Hawai‘i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 11.
* The motion to withdraw his plea was improperly scheduled before the judge who sentenced him, who Texeira claimed had become an “alleged witness.”
The Procedural Roadblock: The Non-Conditional Plea
Despite the lengthy list of grievances, the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) ultimately decided that Texeira had forfeited his right to have these issues heard. The central issue was the nature of his plea.
In Hawai‘i, a defendant who pleads guilty or no contest generally waives the right to appeal nonjurisdictional defects that occurred before the plea, such as issues related to pre-trial motions or evidence suppression. The exception to this general rule is the “conditional plea,” allowed under HRPP Rule 11(a)(2). A conditional plea allows a defendant to specifically reserve, in writing and with court and state consent, the right to appeal the adverse ruling on a specified pre-trial motion. If the defendant loses that appeal, they can withdraw the plea.
The ICA noted that Texeira pled no contest *without* entering a conditional plea. Because he did not go to trial and failed to reserve these specific nonjurisdictional issues in writing, the court found he waived the right to challenge them.
The State argued successfully that because Texeira entered a non-conditional plea, he could not appeal the alleged nonjurisdictional defects in the proceedings.
Addressing the Jurisdictional Claim
The court recognized that even with a no contest plea, a defendant can typically still challenge jurisdictional defects—those issues that question the court’s fundamental authority to hear the case. Texeira attempted to frame one of his arguments as jurisdictional, claiming there was “no jurisdiction on the basis that there was no charging instrument” and that the court erred in sentencing him when no valid charge existed.
Texeira suggested he never received a citation or a formal complaint, thus rendering the entire process void.
However, the ICA examined the record and found evidence of a valid charging instrument. The record showed an Excessive Speeding citation issued on August 6, 2021, by a Hawai‘i County Police Department officer. This citation, which is recognized as a valid way for an officer to charge a petty misdemeanor like speeding under HRS § 803-6, was signed by the officer and signed by Texeira, acknowledging his agreement to appear in court. Furthermore, Texeira did appear in court on the scheduled date.
The ICA concluded that the record contained the necessary charging instrument, making Texeira’s jurisdictional argument meritless.
Because none of the fifteen points of error challenged jurisdiction directly, and the one argument that touched upon jurisdiction failed on factual grounds, the ICA affirmed the District Court’s judgment.
The court also noted that Texeira’s Opening Brief failed to comply with numerous requirements of the Hawai‘i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28, making review difficult due to its argumentative tone and insufficient record references. However, the primary basis for the dismissal was the waiver created by the non-conditional no contest plea.