State v. Brandimart

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• overruling the State v. Ortiz, 4 Haw. App. 143, 662 P.2d 517 (1983), aff'd on other grounds, 67 Haw. 181, 683 P.2d 822 (1984), holding which recognized the tolling effect of a motion for reconsideration in a criminal case
• explaining \HRAP and HRPP are silent as to whether that particular motion tolls the thirty (30) day period for filing a notice of appeal\ and holding motion for reconsideration was not a tolling motion \[i]n the absence of an express statement to the contrary\
• “A court always has jurisdiction to determine whether it has jurisdiction over a particular case.”
• \[C]ompliance with the requirement of the timely filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional\ and \[w]e must dismiss an appeal on our own motion if we lack jurisdiction.\
• \The State filed its motion for reconsideration pursuant to [HRPP] Rule 47\ 3
• motion for reconsideration under HRPP 47 is not a tolling motion

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).