Legal Opinion

State v. Maddagan

Hawaii Supreme Court

Decided March 21, 2001No. 23690PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion of the Court by

ACOBA, J.

We hold that the first circuit court (the court) erred in summarily denying the motion to withdraw guilty plea of Defendant Appellant Noel Quintua Maddagan (Defendant). The court’s denial rested on the ground that, in violation of Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 57, no withdrawal of prior counsel and substitution of the counsel who had made the motion was filed. We conclude that, under HRPP Rule 57, the court had the discretion to allow substitution on conditions other than those expressly enumerated in the Rule and that under the circumstances,…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Faretta v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  2. Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  3. United States v. MonsantoSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  4. United States v. Andrew F. BurtonCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1978
  5. State v. MerinoHawaii Supreme Court · 1996

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. State v. CramerHawaii Supreme Court · 2013
  2. State v. Reed.Hawaii Supreme Court · 2015
  3. State v. CramerHawaii Supreme Court · 2013
  4. State v. Cramer.Hawaii Supreme Court · 2013
  5. State v. HigaHawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · 2012

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API