Source: http://hi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20130628_0000613.HI.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-12-02 19:58:29
Document Index: 97255292

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 706', '§ 712', '§ 706', '§ 706', '§ 706', '§ 706', 'In Casu', '§ 706', '§ 712', '§ 706', '§ 712', '§ 712', '§ 706', '§ 712', '§ 706', '§ 706', '§ 706', '§ 712', '§ 706', '§ 706', '§ 706', '§ 706', '§ 706', '§ 706', '§ 706', '§ 706', '§ 706', '§ 706', '§ 706', '§ 706', '§ 712', '§ 712', '§ 706', '§ 706', '§ 3', '§ 712', '§ 712', '§ 712', '§ 706', '§ 712', '§ 712', '§ 4', '§ 712', '§ 706', '§ 18', '§ 706', '§ 712']

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-11-0000802; CR. NO. 11-1-0523).
Ronette M. Kawakami, (Summer M. M. Kupau with her on the briefs) for petitioner.
ACOBA, MCKENNA, AND POLLACK, JJ., WITH RECKTENWALD, C.J., DISSENTING SEPARATELY, WITH WHOM NAKAYAMA, J., JOINS.
On certiorari, Casugay-Badiang argues that the "ICA's Opinion simply concludes that 'HRS § 706-667 is contrary to HRS § 712-1240.8' without undertaking a thorough analysis of the construction of both statutes." We now take a closer look at both statutes.
Notwithstanding sections 706-620, 706-640, 706-641, 706-660, 706-669, and any other law to the contrary, a person convicted of methamphetamine trafficking in the second degree shall be sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of ten years with a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of not less than one year and not greater than four years and a fine not to exceed $10, 000, 000 [. ]
Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, a person convicted of committing the offense of prostitution shall be sentenced as follows: [for the first offense, a fine or community service and/or a prison term of not more than 30 days; for a subsequent offense, a fine and a prison term of 30 days, without possibility of suspension of sentence or probation.]
[T]his court has repeatedly employed a plain-language analysis in interpreting statutes that contain the phrase, 'notwithstanding any other law to the contrary. . . .' See State v. Hamili, 87 Hawai'i 102, 105, 952 P.2d 390, 393 (1998)(reaffirming this court's holding in State v. Rice, infra); State v. Dannenberg, 74 Haw. 75, 80, 837 P.2d 776, 778 (1992)(reaffirming this court's holding in Rice, infra); State v. Mun Chung Tom, 69 Haw. 602, 604, 752 P.2d 597, 598 (1988)(analogizing the language of the driving under the influence (DUI) statute to the wording of the prostitution statute, infra, and noting that "the language of the DUI statute [(i.e., a person convicted 'shall be sentenced as follows without possibility of probation')] is sufficiently clear in mandating the sentence to be imposed"); State v. Rice, 66 Haw. 101, 657 P.2d 1026 (1983) (holding that, where the prostitution statute provides "notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, a person convicted of committing the offense of prostitution shall be sentenced as follows[, ]" the phrase "'any other law to the contrary' . . . takes away [the trial court's] power to grant deferred acceptance of guilty pleas in prostitution cases").
See also State v. Kamanao, 118 Hawai'i 210, 218, 188 P.3d 724, 732 (2008)("The express language of HRS § 706-606.5, '[n]othwithstanding . . . any other law to the contrary . . . [, ] ''clearly limits the applicability of HRS § 706-668 in cases involving the '[s]entencing of repeat offenders.' HRS § 706-668 is precisely the type of 'law to the contrary' described in HRS § 706-606.5.")
Moreover, within the phrase "notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, " a plain language, dictionary definition of "contrary" is "being opposite to or in conflict with each other[.]" Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 765 (10th Ed. 1989)(cited in State v. Schnabel, 127 Hawai'i 432, 448, 279 P.3d 1237, 1253 (2012)). "'[T]wo statutes conflict' where Mi]t is not possible to give effect to both[.]" Id. (citing State v. Richie, 88 Hawai'i 19, 35, 960 P.2d 1227, 1243 (1998)). In Casugay-Badiang's case, HRS § 706-667 is seemingly contrary to HRS § 712-1240.8(3) because "[i]t is not possible to give effect to both" an indeterminate five-year term of imprisonment under the former statute and an indeterminate ten-year term of imprisonment under the latter. Under Richie, then, and in contrast to the circuit court's reasoning, a sentence under HRS § 706-667 is not just "mitigating" in relation to HRS § 712- 1240.8(3); it is contrary to HRS § 712-1240.8(3). Thus, under Richie, HRS § 706-667 would appear to be included in HRS § 712- 1240.8(3)'s phrase "notwithstanding . . . any other law to the contrary[.]"
This was so, even though at the time Lau was decided, HRS § 706-659 (1985) provided, "Notwithstanding . . . any other law to the contrary, a person who has been convicted of a class A felony shall be sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of twenty years without possibility of suspension of sentence or probation." (emphasis added). This court stated that the sentencing court could sentence Lau under HRS § 706-667, without discussing HRS § 706-659's express "notwithstanding any other law to the contrary" language, which is similar to HRS § 712-1240.8(3)'s "notwithstanding" language. 73 Haw. at 260, 831 P.2d at 524. In fact, we stated, "Once the court determines that imprisonment is necessary, the court 'is free ... to choose' between the ordinary term or the special indeterminate sentence under the young adult defendants statute." 73 Haw. at 263, 831 P.2d at 525 (citing HRS § 706-667 commentary). Therefore, Lau is in tension with Dannenberg, as well as Rice, which existed at the time Lau was decided.
B. HRS § 706-667 We now turn to an examination of HRS § 706-667, which provides:
On the other hand, the plain language of HRS § 706-667 also states, "A young adult defendant convicted of a felony, in lieu of any other sentence of imprisonment authorized by this chapter, may be sentenced to a special indeterminate term of imprisonment." All sentences for all offenses are governed by "this chapter, " meaning Chapter 706.[6] See HRS § 706-600 (1993)("No sentence shall be imposed otherwise than in accordance with this chapter."); HRS § 706-660 cmt. (1993) ("This section establishes that dispositions for all offenses - whether defined within or outside the Penal Code - are to be imposed in accordance with this chapter and . . . 'the only dispositions authorized are those permitted by the Code.'").
This court previously construed the limitation found in subsection (3) in favor of young adult defendants. In State v. Pacariem, 67 Haw. 46, 47, 677 P.2d 463, 464 (1984), we faced the issue of whether young adult defendant sentencing was available following a conviction for attempted murder. At the time, HRS § 706-667 expressly stated that murder was the only offense for which young adult defendant sentencing was unavailable. 67 Haw. at 47 n.1, 677 P.2d 463 n.1.
H.R.S. § 706-667 specifically provides that it is not applicable to the offense of murder. It also provides that the sentencing court has the discretion to apply H.R.S. § 706-667 ". . .in lieu of any other sentence of imprisonment authorized by this chapter." These two provisions of H.R.S. § 706-667 are not plainly irreconcilable with H.R.S. § 706-660.1, but rather invest the sentencing court with discretion to apply H.R.S. § 706-667 to a young adult defendant, as long as the offense in question is not murder.
C. Legislative History of Act 230 of 2006
In light of these two competing and equally viable plain language readings of HRS §§ 712-1240.8 and 706-667, legislative history may be a helpful aid in understanding whether HRS § 712-1240.8 overrides HRS § 706-667, or whether HRS § 706-667 remains a sentencing alternative. The legislature addressed both statutes in the same Act. See 2006 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 230, at 996-1025. Therefore, the actions the legislature took (or did not take) in clarifying the relationship between these two statutes in Act 230 is worth examining.
On one hand, the legislature has singled out methamphetamine trafficking as requiring sentencing separate from the general sentencing provisions found in Chapter 706. The legislature first carved out methamphetamine trafficking for separate sentencing in 2004 when it passed Act 44. 2004 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 44, § 3 at 204-27; see also H. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 495-04, in 2004 House Journal, at 1604 ("Amending the new offense of unlawful methamphetamine trafficking to ... . [s]pecify that other statutes relating to sentencing do not apply to the offense of methamphetamine trafticking[.]"). Act 44 resulted in the codification of HRS § 712-1240.6, which set classes of methamphetamine trafficking offenses according to the weight of methamphetamine, and set mandatory prison terms and fines according to the class of offense. HRS § 712-1240.6 (Supp. 2004).
The new carve-out was pursuant to the legislature's finding "that new and enhanced criminal penalties are needed to protect [Hawai'i's] citizens from the effects of the ice epidemic." 2004 Haw. Sess. Laws at 205. The legislature stated that "the use of and addiction to crystal methamphetamine (especially in the form known as 'ice') . . . has reached epidemic proportions and is currently considered a public health crisis. 2004 Haw. Sess. Laws at 204. HRS § 712-1240.6 was repealed in 2006 and replaced with our current methamphetamine trafficking statutes, HRS Chapter 712, Part IV.
[T]he Code adopts a flexible approach in sentencing. The court is not compelled to impose a special term in the case of a convicted young adult. It may, according to the provisions of Part II of this Chapter, suspend the imposition of sentence or sentence the defendant to probation. If the court determines that imprisonment is necessary, the court is free, within the limitations heretofore set forth, to choose between the special term authorized by this section and the ordinary and extended terms authorized by prior sections in this Part. Subsection (3) merely authorizes the employment of a special, more limited term of imprisonment "if the court is of the opinion that such special term is adequate for... [the defendant's] correction and rehabilitation and will not jeopardize the protection of the public." Assuming the court is satisfied that this condition can be met, there seems no reason for not allowing the court, if it chooses, to protect the young offender from the longer maxima provided for felonies.
Model Penal Code, Tentative Draft 7, comments at 28.
Third, when the legislature simultaneously amended HRS § 706-667 and enacted HRS § 712-1240.8 in 2006, it did not cross-reference those statutes with each other to indicate that young adult sentencing was not available following a conviction under HRS § 712-1240.8. 2006 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 230, §§ 4, 25 at 998-99, 1013. Through that same act, the legislature demonstrated its ability to so cross-reference when it excluded HRS § 712-1240.8 from HRS § 706-622.5. 2006 Haw. Sess. Laws Act 230, § 18 at 1008. Therefore, it appears that the legislature did not intend to exclude HRS § 706-667 as a sentencing alternative to HRS § 712-1240.8(3).