Barnett V. State

Petitioner/cross-respondent-appellant Gregory Barnett appealed the circuit court's April 24, 1996 order denying his Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure (HRPP) Rule 40 petition without a hearing. Barnett argued, inter alia, that the circuit court erred in denying his HRPP Rule 40 petition without a hearing because: (1) the plea agreement was ambiguous and unfulfillable; (2) the minimum term of imprisonment set by the Hawaii Paroling Authority (HPA) was illegal; and (3) his counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel.