Baxa v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 22517 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I JOSEPH BAXA, Petitioner-Appellant vs. STATE OF HAWAI#I, Defendant-Appellant APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT (S.P. NO. 99-0057) (By: SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Ramil, and Acoba, JJ.) Petitioner-appellant Joseph Baxa appeals from the circuit court s judgment in a civil case in favor of respondentappellee the State of Hawai#i. Baxa originally filed a petition for post-conviction relief under Hawai#i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 40 in which he alleged that the Hawai#i Paroling Authority (HPA) violated his rights by setting his minimum term of imprisonment at a period equal to his maximum sentence. appeal, Baxa argues that the circuit court erred in: On 1) processing his Rule 40 petition as a civil complaint; and 2) dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 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 petitioner-appellant s arguments as follows: (1) insofar as Baxa s petition alleged illegality of custody, the circuit court erred in treating his HRPP Rule 40 petition as a civil complaint; see HRPP Rule 40(c)(3) ( If a post-conviction petition alleges neither illegality of judgment nor illegality of postconviction custody or restraint . . . , the court shall treat the pleading as a civil complaint not governed by this rule. ); and (2) such error was harmless because Hawai#i Revised Statutes ยง 706-669 (1993) does not entitle any convicted person to have his minimum term of imprisonment set for a shorter period of time than the maximum possible sentence. THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the circuit court s judgment is affirmed. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, November 6, 2000. On the briefs: Joseph Baxa, petitionerappellant pro se Bryan C. Yee, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent-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.
