Petitioner's May 8, 2006 motion, by title, was an HRPP Rule 36 motion to correct a clerical error in a sentence, but in substance, was a motion to correct a sentence alleged to be illegal because it did not comport with the sentence pronounced. The motion, in substance, was a motion, made more than ninety days after imposition of sentence, to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to HRPP Rule 40(a)(1)(iii). See HRPP Rule 35(a) ("A motion made by a defendant to correct an illegal sentence more than 90 days after the sentence is imposed shall be made pursuant to Rule 40 of these rules."). The August 7, 2006 order denying the May 8, 2006 motion is a judgment entered pursuant to HRPP Rule 40(g)(3) that is appealable pursuant to HRS § 641-11. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the application for a writ of certiorari is accepted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that: (1) the November 30, 2006 order of the Intermediate Court of Appeals dismissing No. 28133 for lack of appellate jurisdiction is vacated and (2) No. 28133 is remanded to the Intermediate Court of Appeals for disposition on the merits.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai`i, January 25, 2007.