Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State of Hawaii, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Patrick K. Cui

January 30, 2012

STATE OF HAWAII, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
PATRICK K. CUI, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT HONOLULU DIVISION (CR. CASE NOS. 1P110-03217, 1P110-02141, 1P110-02140)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

(By: Foley, Presiding Judge and Ginoza, J.; and Leonard, J. dissenting)

In this appeal, Defendant-Appellant Patrick K. Cui (Cui) challenges two judgments, each entitled Notice of Entry of Judgment and/or Order, filed on July 22, 2010 in the District Court of the First Circuit (district court) *fn1 convicting Cui of

violating Revised Ordinances of Honolulu (ROH) § 10-1.2(a)(9)

(2009). For each conviction, the district court sentenced Cui to pay a $50 fine.*fn2

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

On appeal, Cui argues that the district court erred in entering the judgment of conviction for violating ROH § 10-

1.2(a)(9) because: (1) the written and oral charges were fatally insufficient for failing to properly allege the definition of "public park"; (2) there was insufficient evidence; and (3) the district court erroneously determined that Cui's dog was not a service dog and that Cui's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) were not violated.

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we resolve Cui's points of error as follows:

The written and oral charges provided to Cui were insufficient. On February 3, 2010, Cui was issued a Complaint & Summons which stated that on that date at "Kuhio Beach Park" Cui had committed the offense of "Dog in Park," referencing "Section 10-1.2(9) [sic]." On March 8, 2010, Cui was issued another Complaint & Summons. Although difficult to decipher, it appears that this complaint states that on March 8, 2010, at "[undecipherable] 2500 Kalakaua Ave" Cui committed the offense of "[undecipherable] dog ... public park ...." and references "Section 10-1.2(9) [sic]."

On July 9, 2010, the State orally charged Cui as follows:

[The State]:

So the charges are on or about February 3rd, 2010, as well as March 8th, 2010, City and County of Honolulu, State of Hawaii, you did within the limits of any public park permit any animal to enter or to remain within the confines of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.