*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION ***
 
 

NO. 25838
 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI`I
 



 

STATE OF HAWAI`I, Plaintiff-Appellee
 

vs.
 

POʻOKELA RODENHURST, Defendant-Appellant
 


APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(HPD TRAFFIC NO. 5327583MO)
 
 
 

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.)


 

Defendant-appellant Po`okela Rodenhurst (Rodenhurst) appeals from the October 8, 2003 judgment of the district court of the first circuit, the Honorable John Campbell presiding, convicting him of and sentencing him for driving without a license, in violation of Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 286-102 (1993 & Supp. 2003). (1)  On appeal, Rodenhurst argues that HRS § 286-102 did not apply to him, the district court’s application of HRS § 286-102 infringed upon his constitutional right to travel, and HRS § 286-102 violated his right to due process under the law.

Upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs submitted and having given due consideration to the issues raised and arguments advanced, we initially hold that the merits of the issues raised by Rodenhurst will be addressed, notwithstanding his failure to comply with the requirements of Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b), inasmuch as this court favors a policy of affording pro se litigants the opportunity to have their cases heard on the merits, where possible. See HRAP Rule 28(b); Housing Fin. and Dev. Corp. v. Ferguson, 91 Hawai`i 81, 979 P.2d 1107 (1999). We further hold that: (1) HRS § 286-102, on its face, applied to Rodenhurst and did not infringe upon his right to travel, inasmuch as the State, through its police power, was authorized to regulate the operation of motor vehicles for the safety and order of the general public by requiring that all persons who operate motor vehicles on state highways possess a valid driver’s license, see State v. French, 77 Hawai`i 222, 883 P.2d 644 (App. 1994); and (2) Rodenhurst’s due process rights were not violated, inasmuch as HRS § 286-102 did not infringe upon Rodenhurst’s right to travel, and, therefore, he was not entitled to notice or an opportunity to be heard prior to the statute’s application, see State v. Adam, 97 Hawai`i 475, 40 P.3d 877 (2002). Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the district court’s October 8, 2003 judgment, from which the appeal is taken, is affirmed.
 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai`i, April 30, 2004.
 

 

On the briefs:

 

  Po`okela Rodenhurst,

  defendant-appellant pro se
 

  Daniel H. Shimizu,

  Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
  for the plaintiff-appellee
  State of Hawai`i