IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI`I
vs.
REED IRVINE, Defendant-Appellant.
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Ramil, and Acoba, JJ.)
Defendant-appellant Reed Irvine appeals from the March 1, 2001 judgment of conviction and sentence of the Family Court of the Third Circuit, the Honorable Barbara T. Takase presiding, adjudging him guilty of violation of an order for protection, as defined by Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 586-11 (Supp. 2000). (1) Irvine contends that his sentencing was unfairly influenced by consideration of uncharged crimes.
Upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to the issues raised and the arguments presented, (2) we hold that the record fails to demonstrate that the sentencing court erroneously based Irvine's sentence on improper considerations. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the March 1, 2001 judgment of conviction and sentence from which this appeal is taken is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai`i, August 21, 2002.
Richard H. S. Sing
(Linda C. R. Jameson,
on the brief),
Deputy Public Defenders,
for defendant-appellant
Sandra L. S. Freitas,
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
for plaintiff-appellee
1. HRS § 586-11 states in pertinent part, "Whenever an order for protection is granted pursuant to this chapter, a respondent or person to be restrained who knowingly or intentionally violates the order for protection is guilty of a misdemeanor."