NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
30-OCT-2024
08:06 AM
Dkt. 48 SO
NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI
STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
FRANK E. WILSON, Defendant-Appellant,
and
ALFRED L. WOODS, Defendant-Appellee
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 1CPC-XX-XXXXXXX)
SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Leonard, Acting Chief Judge, Wadsworth and Guidry, JJ.)
Defendant-Appellant Frank E. Wilson (Wilson), appeals
from the "Order Denying [] Wilson's Motion to Dismiss for Lack
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
of Jurisdiction[,]" filed on March 2, 2020 (Order)1 by the
Circuit Court of the First Circuit (circuit court).2
Wilson raises a single point of error on appeal:
"Whether the [circuit court] erred in denying [Wilson's] Motion
to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction without considering,
determining, and discussing in the Order whether Schofield
Barracks was in fact a critical or vital area thus divesting the
State of concurrent jurisdiction."
Upon careful review of the record and relevant legal
authorities, and having given due consideration to the arguments
advanced and the issues raised by the parties, we conclude that
Wilson's contention lacks merit.
Wilson's jurisdictional argument, that the State of
Hawaiʻi lacks concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute offenses
committed at Schofield Barracks, raises a question of statutory
interpretation. "Questions of statutory interpretation are
questions of law reviewable de novo." Hawaii Gov't Emps. Ass'n,
1 The State charged Wilson by indictment with Computer Fraud in the
First Degree, in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 708-891(1)
(2014) (Count 1), and Theft in the First Degree, in violation of HRS §§ 708-
830.5(1)(a) and § 708-830(1) (2014) (Count 2). The circuit court dismissed
both Counts 1 and 2 without prejudice. Wilson's appeal is timely taken from
the circuit court's "Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order Granting
[] Wilson's Motion for Reconsideration of the Denial of [] Wilson's Motion to
Dismiss Counts 1 and 2 of the Indictment[,]" (FOF/COL/Order) filed on
November 19, 2021, which resulted in the dismissal of this case without
prejudice. See State v. Nicol, 140 Hawaiʻi 482, 494, 403 P.3d 259, 271 (2017)
("HRS § 641-11 authorizes a defendant's appeal in a criminal matter from a
circuit court order dismissing the proceedings without prejudice").
2 The Honorable Rowena A. Somerville presided.
2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
AFSCME Loc. 152 v. Lingle, 124 Hawaiʻi 197, 201-02, 239 P.3d 1,
5-6 (2010).
In § 16(b) of the Hawaii Statehood Act, Congress
established that the State would share concurrent jurisdiction
with the federal government over lands in Hawaiʻi owned or
controlled by the federal government at the time of Hawaiʻi's
admission as a State. Pub. L. No. 86-3, § 16(b)
73 Stat. 4, 11-
12 (1959). Section 16(b) also, however, reserved to the federal
government "sole and exclusive jurisdiction over such military
installations as have been heretofore or hereafter determined to
be critical areas as delineated by the President of the United
States and/or the Secretary of Defense."
Id. (emphasis added).
Wilson contends that Schofield Barracks, as a military
installation, is a "critical area," as contemplated in the
Hawaii Statehood Act. In support of his contention, Wilson
relies on the President's Executive Order No. 10104, issued on
February 1, 1950, which defines, inter alia, "[a]ll military,
naval, or air-force installations[,]" as "vital military and
naval installations."
In State v. Thomas, 8 Haw. App. 497, 504,
810 P.2d
668, 671-72 (App. 1991), this court held that,
the very last proviso in § 16(b) holds that if the
President and/or Secretary of Defense determines that a
military installation in this state is a "critical area,"
then the United States would have exclusive jurisdiction
over the land within the installation. Again, we are not
3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER
aware that such a determination has been made. Although
there is some authority indicating that Pearl Harbor and
its surrounding contiguous federal lands have been declared
"vital" to the national defense of the country, we decline,
without more, to hold that such a declaration is the
equivalent of the determination required in the last
proviso of § 16(b). See Silas Mason Co. v. Tax Comm'n, 302
U.S. 186,
58 S.Ct. 233,
82 L.Ed. 187 (1937). Absent a
concrete pronouncement by the federal government that it
desires or requires exclusive jurisdiction over the land at
Iroquois Point, we must give effect to the concurrent
jurisdiction established by § 16(b).
(emphasis added).
Here, as in Thomas, we have not been made aware of any
determination by the President and/or Secretary of Defense that
Schofield Barracks is a "critical area" for purposes of § 16(b).
As in Thomas, we decline to hold that Executive Order No. 10104
is the equivalent of such a determination. We must therefore
give effect to the concurrent jurisdiction established by §
16(b).
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Order, filed
March 2, 2020.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, October 30, 2024.
On the briefs:
/s/ Katherine G. Leonard
Emmanuel G. Guerrero, Acting Chief Judge
for Defendant-Appellant.
/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Stephen K. Tsushima, Associate Judge
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
City and County of Honolulu /s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
for Plaintiff-Appellee. Associate Judge
4
