Holmes v. State

── Holmes v. State ── Court: Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals Date: May 22, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX 22-MAY-2026 08:32 AM Dkt. 52 SO NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI ERNEST HOLMES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Respondent-Appellee. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT (CASE NO. 1CSP-XX-XXXXXXX) SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER (By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, Wadsworth and McCullen, JJ.) Self-represented Petitioner-Appellant Ernest Holmes appeals from the Circuit Court of the First Circuit's October 23, 2024 order denying Holmes's petition to remove his name from the Sex Offender Registry (Order) and April 24, 2026 Final Judgment. 1 1 The Honorable Karin L. Holma presided. We note that Holmes prematurely filed a notice of appeal. Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 4(a)(2) (considering a premature notice of appeal as filed immediately after the judgment or order becomes final and appealable). This court remanded for entry of a final judgment. NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER We note that Holmes's opening brief does not comply with Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule 28(b). We endeavor to address Holmes's arguments to the extent we can discern them. See Wagner v. World Botanical Gardens, Inc., 126 Hawaiʻi 190, 193, 268 P.3d 443, 446 (App. 2011). On appeal, Holmes appears to challenge the lifetime registry as unconstitutional, arguing he has "a constitutional right to a risk assessment to determine if [he] pose[s] a threat to society." 2 Holmes also appears to argue that the lifetime registry is "harmful and hurtful," and he has a liberty interest in being removed from the registry. Upon careful review of the record and the briefs submitted by the parties, and having given due consideration to 2 Holmes's "issues presented" are as follows: 1. "Is the lifetime registry in the State of [Hawaiʻi] unconstitutional and a violation of an appellant's due [process] and civil rights when it fails to give an opportunity to be heard on if he poses a risk and a danger to society after successfully completing the State's sex offender program, and is in lifetime therapy and has been deemed not a threat by a professional therapist?" 2. "Is the lifetime registry in the State of [Hawaiʻi] reliable and effective in reducing sex crimes and is it harmful and hurtful?" 3. "Can a Tier 3 level sex offender challenge his lifetime status in the State of [Hawaiʻi] since he has a clear and serious liberty interest in getting off of the registry?" 4. "Was Megan's Law created to keep all Tier 3 level sex offenders on the registry for a lifetime merely because the crime involved a minor?" (Formatting altered.) 2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER the issues raised and the arguments advanced, we resolve this appeal as discussed below and affirm. In his petition, Holmes argued, among other things, that he was a Tier 1 offender and was not a danger to the public, had not reoffended, was active in the community, fulfilled the termination requirements, and was unlikely to reoffend. Holmes did not r