No. 26995 (Nov. 17, 2008)
Opinion [pdf]
OPINION OF THE COURT BY MOON, C.J.
On June 26, 2008, this court accepted a timely application for a writ of certiorari, filed by petitioners/interested persons-appellees Dang Van Tran (Dang) and Sang Tran (Sang) [hereinafter, collectively, the Trans] on May 27, 2008, reqesting this court review the Intermediate Court of Appeals' (ICA) March 17, 2008 judgment on appeal, entered pursuant to its published opinion in Carlisle v. One Boat, No. 26995 (Haw Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2008). Therein, the ICA vacated the Circuit Court of the First Circuit's: (1) February 1, 2002 order granting the Trans' motion to dismiss the verified petition for forfeiture of property filed by respondent/petitioner-appellant Peter Carlisle, in his official capacity as the Prosecuting Attorney of the City and County of Honolulu, on behalf of the State of Hawai'i (the State); (2) December 6, 2004 judgment entered in favor of the Trans; and (3) January 20, 2005 order granting in part and denying in part the Trans' motion to strike the judgment or, in the alternative, to amend the judgment to correct errors and enter the judgment nunc pro tunc. One Boat, slip op. at 27-28. Oral argument was held on September 4, 2008.
Briefly stated, the events giving rise to the State's verified petition, seeking judicial forfeiture, centers around the surveillance of fishing boats in waters off the Wai'anae coast by Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) officers. While on patrol, the officers observed individuals on a boat, later determined to be owned by the Trans, pulling up agill net. After boarding the Trans' boat and conducting an investigation, the DLNR officers seized the boat and other items based on an alleged illegal taking of stony coral, in violation of Hawai'i Administrative Regulations (HAR) § 13-95-70 (1998), quoted infra, and the illegal taking of live rocks, in violation of HAR § 13-95-71 (1998), quoted infra, that were found in the gill net. Ultimately, the circuit court -- on motion by the Trans -- dismissed the State's verified petition, finding that (1) the State's petition failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and (2) the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the forfeiture claims. The circuit court's order of dismissal was filed on February 1, 2002; however, no judgment was entered in the case until December 6, 2 004 — two years and ten months later. The State appealed, and the ICA, as previously stated, vacated the circuit court's dismissal.
On application, the Trans' contention of error is based upon: (1) the ICA's lack of appellate jurisdiction inasmuch as "[the State] failed to timely perfect [its] right to appeal [the circuit court]'s ruling," and (2) their assertion that the circuit court correctly determined there was no specific statutory authorization for the forfeiture claims of the state.
Based on the following discussion, we hold that, although the ICA had jurisdiction to entertain the State's appeal, it erred in vacating the circuit court's orders and judgment inasmuch as the relevant statutes and administrative regulations do not provide the required specific statutory authorization for the State's forfeiture claims. Therefore, we reverse the ICA's March 17, 2008 judgment on appeal and affirm the circuit court's February 1, 2002 order, December 6, 2004 judgment, and January 20, 2005 order. [footnotes omitted]
