Penaflor v. State

2026-08-27

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the circuit court's June 26, 2024 order denying Penaflor's Rule 40 petition because his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim based on failure to cross-examine the complaining witness had been raised and ruled upon in his 1998 petition, and he failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances to justify raising it again.

Crandall Penaflor was convicted in 1991 of burglary, terroristic threatening, kidnapping, and sexual assault, and the Hawaii Supreme Court upheld his conviction on appeal. In 1998, Penaflor filed his first Rule 40 post-conviction petition claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, arguing that his trial lawyer failed to aggressively cross-examine the prosecution witnesses, particularly the alleged victims. That petition was denied without a hearing. In 2024, Penaflor filed a second Rule 40 petition raising what he characterized as a more specific version of the same ineffective-assistance claim—namely, that trial counsel should have cross-examined the complaining witness about her drug use on the day of the alleged assault. The circuit court denied this second petition.

On appeal, the Intermediate Court of Appeals held that Penaflor's claim was barred by the rule against relitigating issues previously ruled upon. The court rejected his argument that the 2024 petition presented a new claim simply because it articulated the ineffective-assistance theory with greater specificity. The court also found that even if the claim could be considered new, Penaflor failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances justifying his failure to raise the specific factual details in his initial 1998 petition. The court noted that lack of legal experience or assistance does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a more specifically articulated version of a previously ruled ineffective-assistance claim may be relitigated in a subsequent Rule 40 petition
Whether lack of legal experience constitutes an extraordinary circumstance justifying failure to raise specific factual details in an initial post-conviction petition
Application of the waiver doctrine under Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure Rule 40(a)(3)

Procedural posture

Penaflor appealed from the circuit court's June 26, 2024 order denying his second Rule 40 post-conviction petition for relief based on claimed ineffective assistance of counsel.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

27-AUG-2026

08:13 AM

Dkt. 38 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I

CRANDALL L. PENAFLOR, Petitioner-Appellant, v.

STATE OF HAWAI I, Respondent-Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT

(CASE NO. 2CPN-XX-XXXXXXX)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER

(By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Hiraoka and McCullen, JJ.)

Petitioner-Appellant Crandall Penaflor (Penaflor)

appeals from the June 26, 2024 Findings of Fact [(FOFs)],

Conclusions of Law [(COLs)], and Order Denying Rule 40 Petition

(Order Denying 2024 Petition) entered by the Circuit Court of the

Second Circuit (Circuit Court).1

On June 25, 1991, after a jury trial, Penaflor was

convicted of Burglary in the First Degree, in violation of Hawaii

Revised Statutes (HRS) § 708-810(1)(c) (1985); Terroristic

Threatening in the First Degree, in violation of HRS §

707-716(1)(d) (Supp. 1989); Kidnapping, in violation of HRS

§ 707-720(1)(d) (Supp. 1986); and Sexual Assault in the First

Degree, in violation of HRS § 707-730(1)(a) (Supp. 1987). The

Hawai i Supreme Court upheld his conviction on appeal. State v.

The Honorable Peter T. Cahill presided.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Penaflor, No. 15629, 1992 WL 213874 (Haw. Aug. 26, 1992) (mem.

op.).

Penaflor has previously filed a number of postconviction petitions and motions and, in some cases, appeals

therefrom. Of particular relevance here, on January 22, 1998,

Penaflor filed his first Hawai i Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP)

Rule 40 Petition (1998 Petition) in which he argued, inter alia,

that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel

because counsel "failed to aggresively [sic] cross examine the

prosecution witnesses, especially the alleged victims, even

though he was aware that I passed a witness and evidence to prove

that the alleged victims were lying on the stand." The 1998

Petition was denied without hearing, with the Circuit Court

reasoning that Penaflor "failed to show any such specific errors

or omissions resulted in the withdrawal or substantial impairment

of a potentially meritorious defense." 2 Penaflor did not appeal

from the denial of the 1998 Petition.

On September 11, 2006, Penaflor filed a second HRPP

Rule 40 Petition (2006 Petition). Penaflor v. State, No. 28527,

2008 WL 2503259 at *1 (Haw. App. June 24, 2008) (SDO). The

Circuit Court denied the 2006 Petition without a hearing on April

17, 2007. Id. Penaflor appealed, raising six points of error.

Id. Relevant here, we held that ineffective assistance of trial

counsel claims were raised and ruled on in the 1998 Petition, and

Penaflor failed to show extraordinary circumstances to justify

his failure to raise any additional ineffective assistance of

counsel claims in the 1998 Petition, and therefore, the

The Honorable Boyd P. Mossman presided.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

additional ineffective assistance of counsel claims raised in the

2006 Petition were waived. Id. at *1-3.

In the Points of Error section of his Opening Brief,

Penaflor contends that the Circuit Court clearly erred in FOF 7

and COLs 1-8. Penaflor's overarching argument is that in the

1998 Petition, he only raised a general confrontation clause

argument that trial counsel failed to properly and aggressively

cross examine the witnesses, especially the alleged victims, and

therefore denied him effective assistance of counsel. In the

2024 Petition and in this appeal, Penaflor asserts more

specifically that trial counsel failed to cross examine the

complaining witness about her drug use on the day of the alleged

assault, which Penaflor maintains was of consequence to her

motives and credibility, thus depriving him of a potentially

meritorious defense.

Upon careful review of the record and the briefs

submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to

the arguments advanced and the issues raised, we resolve

Penaflor's points of error as follows.

We review the Circuit Court's denial of an HRPP Rule 40

petition without a hearing for failure to state a colorable claim

de novo. Dan v. State, 76 Hawai i 423, 427, 879 P.2d 528, 532 (1994).

HRPP Rule 40(a)(3) states:

(3) INAPPLICABILITY. Rule 40 proceedings shall not be

available and relief thereunder shall not be granted where

the issues sought to be raised have been previously ruled

upon or were waived. Except for a claim of illegal

sentence, an issue is waived if the petitioner knowingly and

understandingly failed to raise it and it could have been

raised before the trial, at the trial, on appeal, in a

habeas corpus proceeding or any other proceeding actually

conducted, or in a prior proceeding actually initiated under

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

this rule, and the petitioner is unable to prove the

existence of extraordinary circumstances to justify the

petitioner's failure to raise the issue. There is a

rebuttable presumption that a failure to appeal a ruling or

to raise an issue is a knowing and understanding failure.

Here, Penaflor seeks relief for alleged ineffective

assistance of counsel on essentially the same grounds as he

raised in the 1998 Petition. Penaflor argues that he should

nevertheless be granted relief because his ineffective assistance

of counsel claim in the 1998 Petition was a "generic claim" for

violation of the confrontation clause that was not properly

articulated, whereas in the 2024 Petition, he more particularly

argues that trial counsel should have confronted the complaining

witness about her drug use on the day of the alleged assault.

We conclude that this argument is without merit.

Penaflor's contention that trial counsel was ineffective because

he did not properly cross examine the complaining witness was

raised and ruled upon in the Circuit Court's disposition of the

1998 Petition. HRPP Rule 40(a)(3) expressly prohibits relief

where an issue has been previously ruled upon. Penaflor's

argument that the rule does not apply here because the first

petition was generic, but now he is raising the issue more

specifically, is without legal foundation.

Moreover, even if we were to construe it otherwise,

pursuant to HRPP Rule 40(a)(3), this issue is waived. Penaflor

has not demonstrated the existence of extraordinary circumstances

to justify his failure to raise the issue in the prior petition.

His only argument is that he did not appeal the ruling from the

1998 Petition because he had no legal experience or help. That

is not an extraordinary circumstance justifying a second petition

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

for relief based on the claim that counsel was ineffective in

cross examining the complaining witness, but with a more detailed

identification of the same issue.

Accordingly, the Circuit Court's June 26, 2024 Order

Denying Petition is affirmed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai i, August 27, 2026.

Crandall Penaflor, /s/ Katherine G. Leonard Petitioner-Appellant, Presiding Judge

self-represented

/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka

Renee Ishikawa Delizo, Associate Judge

Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,

County of Maui, /s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen for Respondent-Appellee Associate Judge