Kapika v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION ______________________________________________________________________________ NO. 24649 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I NEDRIC ROBINSON KAPIKA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent-Appellee APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT (SPP NO. 94-03) (By: SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER Watanabe, Acting C.J., Lim and Foley, JJ.) Nedric Robinson Kapika (Kapika) appeals the October 2, 2001 decision and order of the circuit court of the third circuit, the Honorable Greg K. Nakamura, judge presiding. The court's decision and order denied Kapika's October 26, 1994 petition for post-conviction relief, which he brought under Hawai#i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 40 (1994) (the Rule 40 petition). The court's decision and order also granted in part and denied in part Kapika's December 1, 2000 motion to amend his Rule 40 petition. After a sedulous review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties, and giving due consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we resolve Kapika's points of error as follows: 1. HRPP Rule 40 proceedings were "not . . . available and relief thereunder [could] not be granted" because the issues Kapika sought and was allowed to raise in or in connection with -1- NOT FOR PUBLICATION ______________________________________________________________________________ his Rule 40 petition were "previously ruled upon or were waived." HRPP Rule 40(a)(3) (1994). See also Adams v. State, 103 Hawai#i 214, 220, 81 P.3d 394, 400 (2003); Stanley v. State, 76 Hawai#i 446, 450-51, 879 P.2d 551, 555-56 (1994). 2. Kapika does not specify or argue error in the court's October 2, 2001 decision and order, insofar as the court denied in part and granted in part Kapika's December 1, 2000 motion to amend his Rule 40 petition. Hence, we will not consider that part of the court's decision and order. See Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b)(4); Wright v. Chatman, 2 Haw. App. 74, 76-77, 625 P.2d 1060, 1062 (1981); HRAP Rule 28(b)(7); Weinberg v. Mauch, 78 Hawai#i 40, 49, 890 P.2d 277, 286 (1995); In re Wai#ola O Moloka#i, Inc., 103 Hawai#i 401, 438 n.33, 83 P.3d 664, 701 n.33 (2004). Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the October 2, 2001 decision and order of the court is affirmed. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, March 30, 2004. On the briefs: Acting Chief Judge Harry Eliason, for petitioner-appellant. Diane A. Noda and Leslie S. Chow, Deputy Prosecuting Attorneys, County of Hawai#i, for respondent-appellee. Associate Judge Associate Judge -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
