Background
Tyrus J. Delos Reyes pleaded no contest to promoting a dangerous drug in the third degree. In July 2024, the Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit sentenced him to four years of probation and placed him in the HOPE program.
After Delos Reyes tested positive for methamphetamine and could not be reached by probation authorities, the State sought to modify or revoke his probation. Delos Reyes admitted the alleged violations. At the November 2025 resentencing hearing, the circuit court indicated it would reconsider probation if he were accepted into a treatment program, but defense counsel declined the opportunity to seek more time. The court resentenced Delos Reyes to five years’ imprisonment.
The Court’s Holding
The Intermediate Court of Appeals vacated the resentencing order and remanded for resentencing. It held that counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to consult Delos Reyes about the court’s offer to allow time to seek acceptance into a substance-abuse treatment program.
The court concluded that this omission reflected deficient skill, judgment, or diligence and possibly substantially impaired a potentially meritorious defense to the five-year prison term. Although Delos Reyes’s notice of appeal was filed two days late, the court exercised jurisdiction because his former counsel remained attorney of record through the appeal deadline and inexcusably or ineffectively failed to file a timely notice. The court also ordered the appellate clerk to send the order to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel for investigation, without expressing an opinion on whether professional-conduct violations occurred.
Key Takeaways
- Counsel must consult a defendant before declining a court’s offer that could preserve a treatment-based probation option.
- An ineffective-assistance claim may be decided on direct appeal when the existing record is sufficiently developed.
- An untimely criminal appeal may still be reviewed when counsel ineffectively fails to pursue the appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that counsel’s responsibilities at probation-revocation resentencing include pursuing or meaningfully discussing available alternatives to imprisonment. A defendant need show only possible impairment of a potentially meritorious defense, not actual or probable prejudice, to establish ineffective assistance under the applicable Hawai‘i standard.