NOT
FOR PUBLICATION
NO. 24649
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI`I
NEDRIC
ROBINSON KAPIKA, Petitioner-Appellant, v.
STATE OF HAWAI`I, Respondent-Appellee
APPEAL
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT
(SPP NO. 94-03)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Watanabe, Acting C.J., Lim and Foley, JJ.)
After a sedulous review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties, and giving due consideration to the arguments advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we resolve Kapika's points of error as follows:
1. HRPP Rule 40 proceedings were "not . . . available and relief thereunder [could] not be granted" because the issues Kapika sought and was allowed to raise in or in connection with his Rule 40 petition were "previously ruled upon or were waived." HRPP Rule 40(a)(3) (1994). See also Adams v. State, 103 Hawai`i 214, 220, 81 P.3d 394, 400 (2003); Stanley v. State, 76 Hawai`i 446, 450-51, 879 P.2d 551, 555-56 (1994).
2. Kapika does not specify or argue error in the court's October 2, 2001 decision and order, insofar as the court denied in part and granted in part Kapika's December 1, 2000 motion to amend his Rule 40 petition. Hence, we will not consider that part of the court's decision and order. See Hawai`i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 28(b)(4); Wright v. Chatman, 2 Haw. App. 74, 76-77, 625 P.2d 1060, 1062 (1981); HRAP Rule 28(b)(7); Weinberg v. Mauch, 78 Hawai`i 40, 49, 890 P.2d 277, 286 (1995); In re Wai`ola O Moloka`i, Inc., 103 Hawai`i 401, 438 n.33, 83 P.3d 664, 701 n.33 (2004).
Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the October 2, 2001 decision and order of the court is affirmed.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai`i, March 30, 2004.
Harry Eliason, for
petitioner-appellant.
Diane A. Noda and
Leslie S. Chow, Deputy
Prosecuting Attorneys,
County of Hawai`i, for
respondent-appellee.