of HRPP Rule 48. Accordingly, we hold that the circuit court erred in its ruling on the applicability of HRPP Rule 48 to DUI eases. We therefore remand this case, as we did in Lau, to the circuit court for a HRPP Rule 48 hearing on the merits. We note that Lau spoke only to jury demand cases before the circuit court, and jurisdiction was not at issue. However, because there has been some confusion in regard to DUI cases as to the proper forum on remand for a HRPP Rule 48 hearing, we now address this issue to explain the basis of our decision to remand to the circuit court. In Lau, the State charged Defendants with “first offense DUI” and Defendants demanded jury trials. Because Defendants’ demands were made prior to our decision in State v. Nakata, 76 Hawai'i 360, 878 P.2d 699 (1994) (<HOLDING>), Defendants were granted jury trials.
holding that a charge of first offense dui is constitutionally petty and no right to jury trial attaches holding that counsel was not ineffective in failing to request a charge on the lesserincluded offense when the evidence showed either the commission of the completed offense as charged or the commission of no offense such that the defendant was not entitled to a charge on the lesser offense holding that no person may be imprisoned for any offense whether classified as petty misdemeanor or felony unless he was represented by counsel at his trial holding that dui is not such an offense recognizing that two prior first offense dui convictions were sufficient predicate for third offense dui conviction