to show Defendant-Appellant Jay Jeffrey Werner (Defendant) could actually pay $20,000 in restitution. The majority goes on, however, to conclude that the order of the first circuit court (the court) “to pay ten percent of his gross income satisfies the [restitution] requirement better than ordering [Defendant] to pay specific monthly payments[,]” majority opinion at 15, because “[depending on [Defendant’s] income, a specific monthly payment could be too much or too little.” Id. I respectfully disagree. First, I think it is premature to determine whether the percentage method of payment is “reasonable” until after the court has sufficiently determined whether Defendant can actually pay $20,000 in restitution. See State v. Johnson, 68 Haw. 292, 297-98, 711 P.2d 1295, 1299 (1985) (<HOLDING>). The method of payment may be governed by the
holding that it is incumbent upon the trial court to enter into the record findings of fact and conclusions that the manner of payment is reasonable and one which defendant can afford holding that court is not required to state findings of fact and conclusions of law when denying  3582 motion holding because defendant does not argue in his brief that these findings of fact are not supported by    evidence in the record this court is bound by the trial courts findings of fact holding that a reviewing court has the power to reject the findings and conclusions of the trial court where the findings are not supported by the evidence holding that before admitting rule 80324 hearsay statements the trial court must enter in the record appropriate statements rationale or findings of fact and conclusions of law