requests, to controvert or supplement them.”). Kong thus conceded his prior convictions in Cr. No. 92-0138(3) because “each conviction listed may be used against defendant except those as to which the defendant timely responds with a good faith challenge on the record that the prior criminal conviction was ... not against the defendant.” Heggland, 118 Hawai'i at 439-40, 193 P.3d at 355-56 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). Kong had more than enough time before sentencing to review the PSI report and bring any errors to the Circuit Court’s attention, so that the failure to object resulted in a concession of its accuracy. Heggland, 118 Hawai'i at 445-46, 193 P.3d at 361-62 (citing inter alia People v. Matthews, 362 Ill.App.3d 953, 968, 299 Ill.Dec. 411, 842 N.E.2d 150, 161-62 (2005) (<HOLDING>)). There would be no purpose in giving the
holding trial counsel was deficient for failing to object to unadjudicated extraneous offenses in a psi report holding that because the defendant did not object to the factual recitations in the psi he effectively admitted the facts in the psi holding that defendant waived any objection to the accuracy of the presentence report by failing to object after having been given ample opportunity to do so holding that where defendant failed to object to facts in psi relating to prior conviction the failure to object constituted an admission holding that the defendant conceded the accuracy of his prior convictions in his psi report by failing to object to the report