ANTHONY K. KEKONA, JR., Petitioner-Appellant,
STATE OF HAWAI'I, Respondent-Appellee
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT. (S.P.P. NO. 12-1-0008(1)).
On the briefs: Anthony K. Kekona, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant Pro se.
Artemio C. Baxa, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, County of Maui, for Respondent-Appellee.
Foley, Presiding Judge, Leonard and Reifurth, JJ. Daniel R. Foley, Presiding Judge. Katherine G. Leonard, Associate Judge. Lawrence M. Reifurth, Associate Judge.
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
Petitioner-Appellant Anthony K. Kekona, Jr. (Kekona) appeals from the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Dismissing Petition for Post-Conviction Relief Under HRPP Rule 40, i.e. Document Entitled " HRS 660-6 and 660-7 Order to Show Cause," filed on September 5, 2012 (Order Denying Relief), in the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit (Circuit Court).
On appeal, Kekona concedes that his previous Petition, pursuant to Rule 40 of the Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) was denied. However, Kekona asserts that the law in Hawai'i has changed since then and he again claims that the court lacks jurisdiction because he is a citizen of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Kekona also claims that the Circuit Court erred by denying his request for appointment of counsel to assist in asserting this claim.
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 Kekona's points of error as follows:
Recent Hawai'i law reaffirms the jurisdiction of the court over Kekona. In State v. Kaulia, 128 Hawai'i 479, 487, 291 P.3d 377, 385 (2013), the supreme court held that " the [S]tate's criminal jurisdiction encompasses all areas within the territorial boundaries of the State of Hawai'i." Further, " whatever may be said regarding the lawfulness of its origins, the State of Hawai'i. .. is now, a lawful government, " and " [i]ndividuals claiming to be citizens of the Kingdom and not of the State are not exempt from application of the State's laws." Id. (citations, internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).
Therefore, Kekona's claim that the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction is without merit and the Circuit Court did not err by denying his request for appointment of counsel.
For these reasons, the Circuit Court's September 5, 2012 Order Denying Relief is affirmed.