NO. 26259
IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI`I
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
STATE OF HAWAI`I, Plaintiff-Appellee
vs.
RICHARD
LOUIS ADAM, Defendant-Appellant
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
APPEAL
FROM THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT
(CR. NO. 99-0019K)
ORDER
(By: Acoba, J.)
Upon consideration of Defendant-Appellant Richard Adam's "motion for
reconsideration of this court's order denying to
hear my pro se motion to annul judgment due to tampered transcripts
and/or leave to pursue my Rule 40 petition because of
attorney of record," the papers in support, and the records and files
herein, it appears that: (1) Appellant filed a notice of
appeal in this matter without the assistance of counsel; (2) on
February 20, 2004, Appellant moved for appointment of
attorney Shawn Luiz as his attorney for this appeal; (3) this court
remanded the case to the third circuit court to determine whether
Appellant qualified for court-appointed counsel; (4) the circuit court
found Appellant qualified for a court-appointed attorney and appointed
attorney Shaw Luiz to represent Appellant in this appeal; (5) this
appeal is fully briefed
and ready for assignment; (6) Appellant, proceeding pro se, filed a
motion to annul the judgment and/or for leave to file a
Rule 40 petition during the appeal; (7) the court denied the motion
because Appellant is represented by counsel and all
requests for relief must be filed by counsel of record, See Martinez v. Court of Appeal of
California, Fourth Appellate
District, 528 U.S. 152 (2000) (there is no constitutional right
for self-representation on appeal from a criminal conviction);
(8) Appellant, proceeding pro se, moves for reconsideration alleging he
has new evidence that must be presented in a Rule
40 petition and his attorney does not want to file a Rule 40 petition;
and (9) review of court records shows that Appellant
filed a HRPP Rule 40 petition for post conviction relief in the circuit
court on February 3, 2003, and that petition remains
pending. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration is denied.
DATED: Honolulu,
Hawai`i, November 18, 2004.
Richard Adam,
defendant-
appellant, on the motion.