SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
Self-represented Defendant-Appellant Thackeray Taylor (Taylor) appeals from the Notice of Entry of Judgment and/or Order and Plea/Judgment (Judgment), entered by the District Court of the First Circuit, Honolulu Division (district court) on May 22, 2019, as amended on July 30, 2019.
1
The district court convicted Taylor of two petty misdemeanors: driving without a licence, in violation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 286-102 (Supp. 2018), and driving without insurance, in violation of HRS § 431:10C-104 (2019).
On appeal, Taylor claims the district court erred in (1) assuming personal jurisdiction over Taylor; (2) denying Taylors various motions without providing findings of fact and conclusions of law (FOF & COL); and (3) labeling Taylor as “pro se” when he averred he was proceeding “per se.”
2
Upon careful review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties and having given due consideration to the arguments and the issues raised by the parties, as well as the relevant statutory and case law, we conclude that Taylors appeal is without merit.
(1) “The existence of jurisdiction is a question of law and is reviewed de novo under the right/wrong standard.” State v. Uchima, 147 Hawai‘i 64, 72, 464 P.3d 852, 860 (2020).
Taylor challenges the district courts personal jurisdiction in this case. The district court properly exercised personal jurisdiction over Taylor because the “State of Hawai‘i - Citation for Traffic Crime(s) Arrest In the District Court of the First Circuit” (First Circuit Citation) issued to Taylor alleges the offenses occurred at Kapahulu Ave./Wai‘alae Ave. Thus, Taylor allegedly committed the offenses in Hawai‘i. HRS § 701-106 (2014) (“[A] person may be convicted under the law of this State of an offense committed by the persons own conduct or the conduct of another for which the person is legally accountable if: (a) Either the conduct or the result which is an element of the offense occurs within this State[.]”). “[T]he [S]tates criminal jurisdiction encompasses all areas within the territorial boundaries of the State of Hawai‘i.” State v. Kaulia, 128 Hawai‘i 479, 487, 291 P.3d 377, 385 (2013).
Given the above, the district court properly exercised personal jurisdiction over Taylor.
(2) FOF & COL are not required for rulings on motions in district court criminal cases. Hawai‘i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 44A(b) (2020) (allowing the district court to issue FOF & COL at its discretion).
(3) Finally, “pro se” is a legal term describing a person representing themselves. Blacks Law Dictionary 1476 (11th ed. 2019) (“One who represents oneself in a court proceeding without the assistance of a lawyer[.]”). This is allowed by HRS § 605-2 (2016) (“[N]othing in this chapter shall prevent any person, plaintiff, defendant, or accused, from appearing in person before any court, and there prosecuting or defending that persons, plaintiffs, defendants, or accuseds own cause, without the aid of legal counsel[.]”).
Accordingly, Taylors points of error are without merit.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Notice of Entry of Judgment and/or Order and Plea/Judgment, filed May 22, 2019, as amended on July 30, 2019, in the District Court of the First Circuit, Honolulu Division, is affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
1
. The Honorable Harlan Y. Kimura presided.
2
. Taylors opening brief does not comply with Rule 28(b) of the Hawai‘i Rules of Appellate Procedure because, among other things, appropriate citations to the record are not provided. However, given Taylors self-represented status, we address his points of error to the extent they can be discerned.