Background
Tomas Alday-Morales pleaded guilty under a plea agreement to three counts of first-degree violation of privacy, each a Class C felony carrying a maximum five-year prison term. The indictment alleged that he placed hidden cameras in his adult stepchildren’s bedrooms and recorded them nude or engaged in sexual activity with their partners. It also alleged that the cameras recorded nude images of a minor stepdaughter who sometimes used one bedroom.
The Circuit Court of the Second Circuit imposed three five-year prison terms and ordered them to run consecutively, for a total of 15 years. Although the court discussed the seriousness of the conduct, the victims’ statements, deterrence, public protection, treatment, and other statutory sentencing considerations, Alday-Morales argued on appeal that it failed to explain why concurrent sentences were insufficient or why each consecutive term was warranted.
The Court’s Holding
The Hawai‘i Intermediate Court of Appeals held that the circuit court did not adequately justify the three consecutive sentences. Hawai‘i precedent requires a sentencing court to explain how the statutory sentencing factors support a sentence beyond the presumptive concurrent sentence and to articulate the rationale for each consecutive term.
The appellate court concluded that the circuit court treated the three felonies collectively and did not give substantial and pointed reasons for making each sentence consecutive. Describing the facts as “horrific” and stating that a sentencing disparity was appropriate did not specify why three consecutive terms, rather than concurrent terms or fewer consecutive terms, were necessary. The court therefore vacated the judgment as to the sentence and remanded for resentencing.
Alday-Morales also requested resentencing before a different judge, but the appellate court did not address that request because he provided no supporting argument or authority.
Key Takeaways
- A sentencing court imposing consecutive prison terms must explain why a concurrent sentence would be insufficient.
- The court must provide a rationale for each consecutive sentence and specify the basis for the number of consecutive terms imposed, even if the same factors support multiple terms.
- General findings that conduct was serious or horrific do not, without a count-specific explanation, adequately justify multiple consecutive sentences.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that consecutive sentencing in Hawai‘i requires more than a general discussion of statutory sentencing factors. Trial courts must connect those factors to the decision to exceed the concurrent-sentencing default and explain the structure of the aggregate sentence.
For appellate practitioners, the order also illustrates that a request for reassignment to a different judge must be supported with argument and authority or the appellate court may decline to address it.