State v. Penn

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION NO. 25204 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NATHANIEL PENN, Defendant-Appellant, and MASAAKI NEMOTO, Defendant APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT (CR. NO. 00-1-0425) (By: SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER Watanabe, Acting C.J., Lim and Foley, JJ.) Defendant-Appellant Nathaniel Penn (Penn) appeals from the Judgment filed on June 14, 2002 in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit court).1 Penn was convicted of Burglary in the First Degree, in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 708-810(1)(c) (1993), and Robbery in the First Degree, in violation of HRS § 708-840(1)(b) (1993 & Supp. 2003). On appeal, Penn contends2 the circuit court3 erred in denying his "Motion for Specific Performance of [Plea Bargain] 1 The Honorable Richard K. Perkins presided. 2 Defendant-Appellant Nathaniel Penn's Second Amended Opening Brief fails to comply with Hawai#i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b)(3) in failing to include "record references supporting each statement of fact or mention of court . . . proceedings." Specifically, the opening brief fails to include record references for facts presented, refers to "RA" without a page number, and fails to include volume numbers for the record references. Defendant-Appellant Penn's counsel is warned that future non-compliance with HRAP 28 may result in sanctions against him. 3 The Honorable Frances Q. F. Wong presided. NOT FOR PUBLICATION Offer and Remedy for Denial of Equal Protection" (Motion for Specific Performance). Upon careful review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties, we hold that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Penn's Motion for Specific Performance because there was no plea agreement to enforce under Hawai#i Rules of Penal Procedure Rule 11(e) and Penn does not have a constitutional right to a plea bargain. Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 561, 97 S. Ct. 837, 846 (1977). Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Judgment filed on June 14, 2002 in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit is affirmed. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, October 21, 2004. On the briefs: Andre S. Wooten for defendant-appellant. Acting Chief Judge Mark Yuen, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, City and County of Honolulu, for plaintiff-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.