Background
Lance Avery Pascubillo pleaded no contest to Operating a Vehicle under the Influence of an Intoxicant (OVUII) in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes § 291E-61(a)(1). The District Court of the Third Circuit, North and South Kona Division, sentenced him to complete a substance abuse assessment and a 14-hour substance abuse rehabilitation program. A $250 Drug Demand Reduction Fee was taken under advisement for one year, conditioned on Pascubillo having no further similar violations.
Following sentencing on August 12, 2024, the district court scheduled a compliance hearing and entered a Judgment reflecting the fee advisement without further explanation. The subsequent Compliance Hearings Order stated that Pascubillo was required to return to court to review his compliance with the treatment components of the Judgment related to the OVUII conviction. Pascubillo moved to strike the proof-of-compliance hearings, arguing the court lacked authority to impose this form of supervision.
The district court denied the motion in its September 9, 2024 Compliance Hearings Order. Pascubillo timely appealed, raising a single point of error challenging the court’s authority to require compliance hearings in an OVUII case. After the appeal was filed, the district court entered an Amended Judgment waiving the Drug Demand Reduction Fee entirely, though this did not moot the appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals reversed the Compliance Hearings Order, holding that the district court exceeded its authority under HRS § 291E-61 by requiring Pascubillo to appear for compliance hearings. The court found no statutory basis permitting a district court to use compliance hearings as a mechanism for monitoring an OVUII defendant’s completion of substance abuse treatment while holding part of a sentence “under advisement.”
Relying on its recent opinion in State v. Rivero-Garcia, No. CAAP-24-0000637, 2026 WL 1582067 (Haw. App. June 3, 2026), the court concluded that compliance hearings in this context effectively operate as an unauthorized form of court supervision akin to probation — a tool not sanctioned by the OVUII statute. The court noted some ambiguity in the record about whether the hearings were tied to the advisement condition on the fee or to monitoring treatment compliance, but determined that this ambiguity did not change the outcome, as neither purpose supplied the necessary statutory authority.
Key Takeaways
- District courts in Hawaii lack statutory authority under HRS § 291E-61 to impose compliance hearings in OVUII cases as a mechanism for monitoring a defendant’s sentence or treatment conditions.
- Using compliance hearings while holding a portion of an OVUII sentence “under advisement” constitutes an impermissible form of court supervision not authorized by the OVUII statute.
- The ruling follows and applies the court’s contemporaneous decision in State v. Rivero-Garcia, signaling a consistent appellate position on this issue across multiple cases.
- A subsequent amended judgment waiving the underlying fee did not cure the legal error in the Compliance Hearings Order, which the court reversed on its merits.
Why It Matters
This decision limits the tools available to Hawaii district courts when sentencing OVUII defendants, making clear that judicially created compliance-monitoring mechanisms must rest on explicit statutory authority. Courts cannot fill perceived gaps in the sentencing scheme by improvising supervisory procedures that function like probation without legislative authorization.
For defense practitioners, the ruling — combined with Rivero-Garcia — establishes a firm appellate precedent to challenge compliance hearing requirements in OVUII and potentially other misdemeanor contexts where similar advisement-based supervision is used. Prosecutors and courts will need to look to the legislature if broader post-sentencing monitoring authority is desired.