Background
Tomas Alday-Morales moved for reconsideration of a September 22, 2026 summary disposition order. That order concluded that his request for resentencing before a different circuit court judge was unsupported by argument or authority and therefore waived under Hawai‘i Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 28(b)(7).
Alday-Morales argued that his opening brief had supported the request by citing State v. Carvalho, which remanded a case to a different judge after an improper sentencing procedure. Although the Intermediate Court of Appeals acknowledged overlooking that citation, it observed that the opening brief did not explain why Carvalho applied to the circuit court’s insufficient articulation of its rationale for imposing consecutive sentences. Alday-Morales also had not filed a reply brief addressing the State’s extensive argument that resentencing should occur before the same judge.
The Court’s Holding
The Intermediate Court of Appeals denied reconsideration. It held that merely citing Carvalho with a parenthetical did not supply an argument connecting that case’s presentence-allocution violation to the sentencing error in Alday-Morales’s case. The court therefore adhered to its conclusion that the request for a different judge was waived under HRAP Rule 28(b)(7).
The court also concluded that the motion improperly raised arguments that could and should have been presented during the original briefing, including in a reply brief. In any event, the requested relief lacked merit because the Hawai‘i Supreme Court had remanded for resentencing before the same judge in the analogous consecutive-sentencing cases State v. Bunag and State v. Bautista.
Key Takeaways
- A citation and parenthetical, without analysis explaining why the cited authority applies, may be insufficient to preserve a requested appellate remedy.
- A reconsideration motion generally cannot be used to present arguments that could have been made during the original briefing.
- An inadequate explanation for consecutive sentences does not, by itself, require reassignment to a different judge on remand.
Why It Matters
The order underscores that appellate counsel must separately develop the legal and factual basis for a requested remedy, not merely establish the underlying error. It also illustrates the risk of declining to file a reply brief when the appellee directly challenges whether the requested relief is supported.
For sentencing appeals, the decision indicates that a remand based on an insufficient rationale for consecutive sentences will ordinarily return to the same sentencing judge absent a developed showing supporting reassignment.