The Hawaii Supreme Court accepted Ashley Vincent Gaeta's petition for writ of certiorari on Dec. 31, 2025, setting the stage for oral arguments that could reshape how plea agreements are structured and implemented in criminal cases across the state.
The court's order, filed electronically on New Year's Eve, directs both parties to submit supplemental briefing on two fundamental questions that strike at the heart of plea bargaining procedures and judicial sentencing practices.
The case, designated SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX, originated from the Intermediate Court of Appeals and involves Gaeta as the petitioner seeking review of his criminal conviction and sentencing. The Hawaii Supreme Court's decision to grant certiorari signals the justices view the case as presenting issues of statewide importance warranting high court review.
Acting Chief Justice Sabrina McKenna leads the five-member panel hearing the case, joined by Justices Todd Eddins, Lisa Ginoza, and Vladimir Devens. Circuit Judge Holma rounds out the panel, assigned due to a vacancy on the court.
The court has ordered the parties to address two specific legal questions through supplemental briefing. The first question examines whether plea agreements that permit consideration of facts and circumstances surrounding dismissed charges can override existing judicial precedent that prohibits such consideration. This issue goes to the core of plea bargaining practices and could affect how prosecutors structure plea deals and what factors courts may consider during sentencing.
The second question focuses on judicial consideration of a defendant's perceived lack of remorse when that defendant enters a no contest plea. This question touches on fundamental principles of criminal procedure and the specific protections afforded to defendants who choose not to admit guilt while accepting criminal responsibility.
Plea agreements represent a cornerstone of the criminal justice system, with the vast majority of criminal cases resolved through negotiated pleas rather than trials. The questions presented in *Gaeta* could significantly impact how these agreements are drafted and what limitations exist on their terms.
The issue of considering dismissed charges during sentencing has been a recurring point of tension in criminal law. Courts have generally held that defendants should not face punishment for charges that were dismissed as part of a plea agreement, as this would undermine the bargaining process and potentially violate due process protections.
Similarly, the question of considering a defendant's lack of remorse when they have entered a no contest plea raises important constitutional concerns. A no contest plea allows defendants to accept criminal responsibility without admitting guilt, and considering their silence or lack of expressed remorse could effectively penalize them for exercising this procedural right.
The court has established a streamlined briefing schedule, requiring each party to submit supplemental briefs within 20 days of the Dec. 31 order. These briefs are limited to 20 pages, exclusive of title pages, indices, appendices, and certificates of service. The court has specifically prohibited response briefs, indicating its desire to move efficiently toward oral arguments.
The case arrives at the Hawaii Supreme Court through the standard certiorari process, where the high court exercises discretionary review over cases that present significant legal questions or conflicts requiring resolution. The Intermediate Court of Appeals had previously heard the case before Gaeta sought review by the state's highest court.
The timing of the court's acceptance, filed on the final day of 2025, suggests the justices view the case as requiring prompt attention. The appellate clerk will notify the parties regarding oral argument scheduling, which typically occurs several months after briefing is complete.
Legal practitioners throughout Hawaii will closely watch the proceedings, as the court's eventual ruling could establish new precedents governing plea bargaining practices and sentencing considerations. The decision may also influence similar cases pending in lower courts and guide prosecutors and defense attorneys in structuring future plea agreements.
The outcome in *Gaeta* could affect thousands of criminal defendants who enter plea agreements in Hawaii's courts each year. If the court restricts the consideration of dismissed charges or limits judicial inquiry into defendants' attitudes during no contest pleas, it could provide additional protections for defendants while potentially complicating plea negotiations.
Conversely, a ruling that permits broader consideration of dismissed charges or defendants' demeanor could give courts additional sentencing factors to consider, potentially affecting the calculations that drive plea bargaining strategies.
The case represents the latest chapter in the ongoing evolution of criminal procedure law, as courts continue to balance the efficiency of plea bargaining with constitutional protections for defendants. The Hawaii Supreme Court's ultimate decision will add to the body of law governing these critical aspects of criminal justice administration.