Case: STATE OF HAWAII, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ELLEN RICE, Defendant-Appellant
Abbreviation: State v. Rice
Court: Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii
Jurisdiction: Hawaii
Decision Date: 1983-01-28
Docket Number: NO. 8627
Citation: 66 Haw. 101
Volume: 66
Reporter: Hawaii Reports
Parties: STATE OF HAWAII, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ELLEN RICE, Defendant-Appellant
Pages: 101–102

STATE OF HAWAII, Plaintiff-Appellee v. ELLEN RICE, Defendant-Appellant
NO. 8627
(CRIMINAL NO. C81-8676)
JANUARY 28, 1983
LUM, ACTING C.J., NAKAMURA, PADGETT AND HAYASHI, JJ„ AND RETIRED JUSTICE MENOR, ASSIGNED BY REASON OF VACANCY

Per Curiam.
This is an appeal from a conviction of prostitution. A single point is raised on appeal. Appellant pled guilty to the charge of prostitution and her attorney made an oral motion for a deferred acceptance of guilty plea under § 853-1, HRS. The trial court held that under § 712-1200(4), he could not grant such a plea. Subsection 4 was added by Act 110 of the Session Laws of 1981. It provides:
Keith M. Kiuchi, Deputy Public Defender, on the briefs, for appellant.
Arthur E. Ross, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, and John M. Conte, law student intern, on the brief, for appellee.
Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, a person convicted of committing the offense of prostitution shall be sentenced as follows:
(a) For the first offense, a fine of $500 ....
Since the last amendment to § 853-1, HRS, was by § 42 of Act 232 of the Session Laws of 1980, we think that § 853-1, HRS, is “any other law to the contrary” and that the court below therefore correctly construed § 712-1200(4) as taking away his power to grant deferred acceptance of guilty pleas in prostitution cases.
Affirmed.