State v. Dickerson
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 23099 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I STATE OF HAWAI#I, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. KEITH A. DICKERSON, Defendant-Appellant APPEALS FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT (NO. 23099 (CR. NO. 98-2113) and NO. 23100 (CR. NO. 98-420)) (By: SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Ramil, and Acoba, JJ.) Defendant-appellant Keith Dickerson appeals from orders denying his motions for reconsideration of his sentences. Dickerson previously pled no contest to the following offenses: one count of robbery in the second degree, in violation of Hawai#i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 708-841(1)(a) (1993); one count of promoting a dangerous drug in the third degree, in violation of HRS § 712-1243 (1993 & Supp. 1999); one count of unlawful use of drug paraphernalia, in violation of HRS 329-43.5(a) (1993); and three counts of theft in the second degree, in violation of HRS § 708-832 (1993). Dickerson was sentenced to ten years imprisonment for the robbery charge and five years imprisonment for each of the two drug charges and the three theft charges. Dickerson moved for reconsideration of his sentences, but the circuit court denied his motions. He argues that the circuit court: 1) erred in denying the motions because he was induced to pled no contest by the judge s statements that he intended to sentence Dickerson to two consecutive one-year terms and probation; and 2) assuming that the court properly denied the motion, it should have sua sponte given Dickerson the opportunity to withdraw his pleas. Upon careful review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to the arguments made and the issues raised by the parties, we resolve defendant-appellant s arguments as follows: 1) the judge s intended sentence was not a promise and was subject to the court s review of the presentence report, and, based upon the presentence report, the circuit court did not err in denying Dickerson s motion for reconsideration of his sentences; and 2) because Dickerson s motions stated that he was not seeking to withdraw his pleas and defense counsel did not indicate otherwise during the hearing on the motions, this argument was waived. THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the circuit court s orders denying Dickerson s motions for reconsideration of his sentences are affirmed. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 31, 2001. On the briefs: Michael G.M. Ostendorp for defendant-appellant Loren J. Thomas, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney and Michelle Mitsuyoshi, Law Clerk on the Brief, for plaintiff-appellee
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.
