The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals has denied a motion from Tomas Alday-Morales seeking resentencing before a different judge. The court ruled on October 12, 2026, that Alday-Morales did not provide sufficient arguments to support his request. This decision affects Alday-Morales as he continues to face the original sentence imposed by the lower court.
The case, State v. Alday-Morales, filed under docket number CAAP-25-0000823, originated from the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit. Alday-Morales had appealed his sentencing, arguing that he deserved to be resentenced by a different judge due to alleged procedural issues during the original sentencing. The appeal reached the Intermediate Court of Appeals after the Circuit Court ruled on his case.
In his motion for reconsideration, Alday-Morales referenced a previous case, State v. Carvalho, to support his argument for resentencing. He claimed that the court had overlooked his citation and that it warranted a review of his case. However, the court found that Alday-Morales did not adequately explain how his situation was similar to Carvalho, which involved a violation of the defendant's rights during sentencing.
The court stated, "While Alday-Morales is correct that this court overlooked his Carvalho citation, the Opening Brief presented no argument as to why the relief granted in Carvalho should apply here." This indicates that the court did not find merit in Alday-Morales's claims for a different judge.
Chief Judge Karen T. Nakasone, along with Associate Judges Keith K. Hiraoka and Kimberly T. Guidry, presided over the ruling. They emphasized that the purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to present new evidence or arguments that could not have been made earlier, and Alday-Morales's motion did not meet this requirement.
The court also noted that Alday-Morales failed to submit a reply brief to address the arguments made by the State in their response to his appeal. The State's brief argued that there were no unusual circumstances or bias that would justify a remand for resentencing before a different judge.
The ruling has implications for future cases, as it reinforces the court's stance on the need for clear and compelling arguments when seeking resentencing. The court referenced recent precedents, including State v. Bunag and State v. Bautista, where similar requests for resentencing were denied. These cases highlight the court's consistency in handling such appeals.
Going forward, Alday-Morales's options for appeal may be limited. The court's decision is a significant ruling in his case, and it appears unlikely that he will be able to present new arguments that were not already considered. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases that might be pending.