APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT (FC-CR. NO. 11-1-029K)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Foley, Presiding J., Leonard and Reifurth, JJ.)
Defendant-Appellant Todd Eugene Hart (Hart) appeals from the September 14, 2011 Judgment (judgment) of the Family Court of the Third Circuit *fn1 (family court). Hart was convicted of violating the Family Court Order for Protection (Order) entered August 2, 2010.
On February 9, 2011, Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawaii (State) filed a complaint charging Hart with "knowingly or intentionally" violating the Order, thereby, violating Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 586-11 (2006). At the conclusion of a bench trial, the family court found Hart guilty.
On September 14, 2011, the family court entered the judgment against Hart and sentenced him to imprisonment for a term of 48 hours, probation for a term of 2 years, and a fine including fees. On October 13, 2011, Hart filed a notice of appeal.
On appeal, Hart contends the family court erred in denying his motion for acquittal and finding him guilty of violating an order for protection because the State did not adduce substantial evidence to establish he knowingly or intentionally or violated the order. In the alternative, Hart contends the family court erred in denying his oral motion to dismiss based on de minimus.
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, as well as the relevant statutory and case law, we conclude Hart's appeal is without merit.
Hart was present with an attorney when the Order was issued by the family court. Hart signed the Order acknowledging he received a copy. The Order, contains, in part, the following language:
B. Contact between the Parties
[Hart] and/or Petitioner shall not personally contact the other party and shall not visit or remain within 100 yards of the residence or place of employment of the other party.
[Hart] and/or Petitioner shall not telephone the other party. Notwithstanding the foregoing order, Respondent/Petitioner may have limited contact with Petitioner/Respondent with counsel present or in joint therapy with another adult present.
The order specified that custody was joint and that visitation was as agreed ...