NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI'I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT 'EWA DIVISION (CASE NO. 1DTC-11-032838).
Taryn R. Tomasa Deputy Public Defender for Defendant-Appellant.
Brian R. Vincent Deputy Prosecuting Attorney City and County of Honolulu Associate Judge for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Nakamura, C.J., Reifurth and Ginoza, JJ.
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
Defendant-Appellant Terry J. Davis (Davis) appeals from the Notice of Entry of Judgment and/or Order and Plea/Judgment (Judgment and Order) filed on January 11, 2012 in the District Court of the First Circuit, 'Ewa Division (district court) 
Davis was charged by an amended complaint with Operating a Vehicle After License and Privilege Have Been Suspended or Revoked for Operating a Vehicle Under the Influence of An Intoxicant, in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 291E-62(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) (Supp. 2011).
After the charge against Davis was read, Davis moved to dismiss the case because the charge was insufficient for failing to include a state of mind allegation.
The motion was denied and Davis was found guilty as charged after trial.
On appeal, Davis contends:
(1) the State failed to adduce sufficient evidence to support the conviction because there was insufficient evidence (a) that Davis operated a vehicle on a public, way, street, or highway; (b) to connect Davis to Exhibit 1, the Judgment of Conviction and Probation Sentence in Cr. No. 06-1-0933; (c) to establish that Davis was the individual sentenced to a driver's license revocation, suspension, or restriction; (d) to establish that on July 22, 2011, Davis intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly operated a vehicle while his driver's license had been revoked, suspended, or restricted; (e) to establish that Davis' driver's license was revoked, suspended or restricted pursuant to the applicable statutes on July 22, 2011; (f) to establish that Davis' operation of the vehicle on July 22, 2011 was in violation of the restrictions placed on his driver's license; (g) to establish that Davis was subject to sentencing for a second offense in a five-year period;
(2) the District Court erred by admitting Exhibit 1 because it was not properly certified and thus not self-authenticating;
(3) double jeopardy precludes a retrial on the same charge;
(4) assuming arguendo that there is sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction, State v. Nesmith, 127 Hawai'i 48, 276 P.3d ...