Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 17, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

State v. Kaneakua

Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals

• Citations: None known

• Docket Number: CAAP-24-0000632

• Opinion

• Authorities (2)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (2.4K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
17-MAR-2026
07:56 AM
Dkt. 86 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

STATE OF HAWAI‘I, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
KRYSTALE SHARYANN IWALANI KANEAKUA, Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT
(CASE NO. 2CPC-XX-XXXXXXX)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Nakasone, Chief Judge, Wadsworth and Guidry, JJ.)

In this appeal, Defendant-Appellant Krystale Sharyann
Iwalani Kaneakua (Kaneakua) challenges her conviction on grounds
that her trial counsel was ineffective. 1 We affirm.

1 Kaneakua's trial counsel was provided an opportunity to respond,
and no response was filed. See Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP)
Rule 28(a) ("If a brief raises ineffective assistance of counsel as a point
of error, the appellant shall serve a copy of the brief on the attorney
alleged to have been ineffective."); State v. Yuen, 154 Hawaiʻi 434, 448, 555
P.3d 121, 135 (2024) ("[I]f new appellate counsel on direct appeal fails to
serve an ineffective assistance claim on trial counsel, the appellate court
must order counsel to do so and provide trial counsel with a reasonable
opportunity to respond.").
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Kaneakua appeals from the August 27, 2024 "Judgment of
Conviction and Sentence," entered by the Circuit Court of the
Second Circuit (Circuit Court). 2 Following a jury trial,
Kaneakua was convicted as charged of second-degree arson and
sentenced to ten years of incarceration.
On appeal, 3 Kaneakua argues that her court-appointed
trial counsel (trial counsel) was ineffective because trial
counsel "did not effectively cross-examine the key witness, [co-
defendant] John Hlis [(Hlis)]"; "did not object" to Maui Police
Department Detective Gregg Katayama's (Detective Katayama)
testimony regarding multiple "fires[,]" where Kaneakua "was only
charged with one fire"; and did not adequately prepare Kaneakua
for cross-examination and "never objected" to the prosecutor's
"argumentative" "questions" and "damaging" "comments." As to
this last argument regarding trial counsel's inadequate
preparation of Kaneakua and failure to object during the
prosecutor's cross-examination of Kaneakua, Kaneakua does not
identify specific errors or omissions by trial counsel and
provides no record references. Accordingly, we decline to
address it. See State v. Salavea, 147 Hawaiʻi 564, 576, 465 P.3d
1011, 1023 (2020) (requiring a defendant claiming ineffective
assistance of counsel to show "specific errors or omissions
reflecting counsel's lack of skill, judgment, or diligence"
(citation omitted)); Briones v. State, 74 Haw. 442, 462,

2 The Honorable Peter T. Cahill presided.
3 Kaneakua's Opening Brief does not comply with HRAP Rule 28(b).
It does not contain a "points of error" section, see HRAP Rule 28(b)(4), and
contains no citations to the "parts of the record relied on" in the argument
section. See HRAP Rule 28(b)(7). We address Kaneakua's arguments for which
"the remaining sections of the brief provide the necessary information" to do
so. See Marvin v. Pflueger, 127 Hawaiʻi 490, 496, 280 P.3d 88, 94 (2012)
(2012) (affirming public policy of addressing cases on the merits despite
noncompliance with HRAP Rule 28).

2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

848 P.2d 966, 976 (1993) ("General claims of ineffectiveness are
insufficient and every action or omission is not subject to
inquiry."); HRAP Rule 28(b)(7).
Upon review of the record on appeal and relevant legal
authorities, giving due consideration to the issues raised and
arguments advanced by the parties, we resolve the arguments as
follows.
On May 18, 2022, Plaintiff-Appellee State of Hawaiʻi
(State) charged Kaneakua, and John Hlis (Hlis) in separate
criminal cases, with second-degree arson. Hlis pled guilty to
the arson offense in exchange for a plea agreement with the
State, and Kaneakua pled not guilty and went through a jury
trial, at which co-defendant Hlis testified against her as a
witness for the State.
Hlis testified that on May 12, 2022, Kaneakua, his
friend and previous employer, drove him to a convenience store
and instructed him to purchase "[c]harcoal, Lysol, lighter
fluid[,]" and a "gas can." Hlis testified that after he
purchased the items and the two got back into Kaneakua's car,
Kaneakua began "discussing fires" because "she needed to get
police off of" her boyfriend, Steven Searle (Searle), who "was
being chased by police at the time." Hlis testified that he
"didn't care if [Searle] got arrested" because he "hated" Searle
and Searle "stole [Hlis's] car." Hlis testified that Kaneakua
later stopped her car along Maui Veterans Highway, where he
exited the vehicle and eventually lit a fire because Kaneakua
told him to.
Hlis testified that later that day, police found him
driving Kaneakua's vehicle with "a gun in the backseat" and
arrested him. Hlis testified that he did not threaten Kaneakua
with the gun, the gun was not used in the commission of starting

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

the fire, Kaneakua knew it was there, and that he was "supposed
to deliver it to an uncle." Hlis testified that upon being
pulled over by police he denied knowledge of the fire, but the
next day at the police station he told "the truth about what
happened" because "[t]hey changed the detectives."
Hlis testified that he pled guilty to second-degree
arson pursuant to a plea agreement, and that "[f]or testifying,
[he] [would] get four years['] probation," and possibly "18
months jail time" with time served.
On cross-examination, trial counsel asked whether
Kaneakua "intimidated" Hlis to start the fire, to which Hlis
responded, "No." Trial counsel asked Hlis whether Kaneakua was
"by [his] side" when he selected the items for purchase at the
convenience store, to which Hlis also responded, "No."
Detective Katayama testified that on May 13, 2022, he
was assigned to investigate six suspicious fires, including a
fire that occurred on Maui Veterans Highway. On direct
examination the State asked Detective Katayama whether he had
interviewed Hlis regarding the fires. Detective Katayama
responded in the affirmative and testified that Hlis "admitted
to starting some of the fires[.]" Immediately after this
response, the State asked to approach the bench, and the Circuit
Court struck Detective Katayama's testimony and instructed the
jury "not to consider it."
Kaneakua testified that on May 12, 2022, she drove to
a convenience store with Hlis because she was "starving" and
that she was unaware of what Hlis had purchased. Kaneakua
testified that after leaving the convenience store, the two got
back into the car and drove down Maui Veterans Highway.
Kaneakua testified that at some point on Maui Veterans Highway,
she pulled over at Hlis's request for a bathroom break. After

4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Hlis got out, Kaneakua observed an "explosion" that caused her
to take her foot off the brakes; Kaneakua asked Hlis "[w]hat are
you doing[,]" and Hlis jumped back in the moving vehicle.
Kaneakua testified that she "panicked" and "want[ed] nothing do
with" the fire and left the scene. Kaneakua testified that she
later gave her car to Hlis because she "felt responsible for
giving [Searle] [Hlis's] car."
In closing argument, trial counsel argued that there
was no dispute that Hlis started the fire, and Kaneakua was
driving the vehicle that Hlis was in. Trial counsel argued that
the "only real issue in this case [wa]s, [whether] [Kaneakua]
[did] aid, as an accessory, [Hlis] in setting a fire[.]" Trial
counsel argued that Hlis was the one who bought the flammable
items from the convenience store, that there was no evidence
that Kaneakua directed Hlis to buy the items, and that the
moment Hlis started the fire, Kaneakua wanted no part and drove
off. Trial counsel argued that Kaneakua was "in the wrong place
at the wrong time."
For ineffective assistance of counsel cases, "a
defendant must [first] show that there were specific errors or
omissions reflecting counsel's lack of skill, judgment, or
diligence." Salavea, 147 Hawaiʻi at 576, 465 P.3d at 1023
(citation omitted). "Second, the defendant must establish that
these errors or omissions resulted in either the withdrawal or
substantial impairment of a potentially meritorious defense."
Id. (citations omitted).
Trial counsel's cross-examination of Hlis
Kaneakua argues that trial counsel only "spent about a
minute cross examining" Hlis and "could have spent much more
time cross examining him." Kaneakua contends trial counsel
"could have explored the fact" that Hlis "said he hated

5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

[Kaneakua]'s boyfriend"; "questioned" Hlis "much more
extensively" regarding "the loaded gun in the car" and whether
he used it to "intimidate" Kaneakua; "questioned" Hlis "about
the plea deal"; "confronted" Hlis about "the fact that he lied
to the police initially and so what would stop him from lying to
th[e] jury"; and "confronted" Hlis "with his flimsy reason for
starting th[e] fire."
The State argues, among other things, that Kaneakua
does not indicate how "cross-examining Hlis 'more extensively'
would have made any difference to her defense."
Kaneakua does not present argument regarding how trial
counsel's failure to spend more time cross-examining Hlis led to
"the withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially
meritorious defense[,]" required to sustain a claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel. See id. (citations omitted);
HRAP Rule 28(b)(7).
Alleged failure to object during Detective Katayama's
testimony
Kaneakua argues that trial counsel failed to object to
Detective Katayama's testimony that Hlis "admitted to starting
some of the fires." (Underscore omitted.) Kaneakua contends
that Detective Katayama's testimony was "highly prejudicial"
because Kaneakua "was only charged with one fire."

The State responds that the Circuit Court immediately
struck Detective Katayama's statement at the State's request and
instructed the jury to disregard it. The State also contends
that Kaneakua does not argue how Detective Katayama's "stricken
statement resulted in the withdrawal or substantial impairment
of a potentially meritorious defense."
Here, the record reflects that the Circuit Court
promptly struck Detective Katayama's statement at issue and

6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

instructed the jury to disregard it. Further, Kaneakua does not
argue how trial counsel's lack of intervention resulted in the
"withdrawal or substantial impairment of a potentially
meritorious defense[,]" required to sustain a claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel. See Salavea, 147 Hawaiʻi at
576, 465 P.3d at 1023 (citations omitted); HRAP Rule 28(b)(7).
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the August 27,
2024 "Judgment of Conviction and Sentence," entered by the
Circuit Court of the Second Circuit.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, March 17, 2026.
On the briefs:
/s/ Karen T. Nakasone
Steven Slavitt,
Chief Judge
for Defendant-Appellant.
/s/ Clyde J. Wadsworth
Chad Kumagai,
Associate Judge
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney,
County of Maui,
/s/ Kimberly T. Guidry
for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Associate Judge

7