Opinion ID: 2623166
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Hawaii's indeterminate extended term sentencing scheme

Text: Under our system of government, the power to determine appropriate punishment for criminal acts lies in the legislative branch. State v. Bernades, 71 Haw. 485, 490, 795 P.2d 842, 845 (1990) (quoting State v. Freitas, 61 Haw. 262, 274, 602 P.2d 914, 923 (1979)). Hawai'i utilizes a mandatory indeterminate sentencing scheme. See Bernades, 71 Haw. at 488, 795 P.2d at 844. An indeterminate sentence is [a] sentence to imprisonment for the maximum period defined by law, subject to termination by the parol board or other [authorized] agency at any time after service of the minimum period ordinarily set by the paroling authority. Black's Law Dictionary 911 (4th ed. 1968). In this jurisdiction, a convicted defendant's individual characteristics and culpability are considered by the Hawai'i Paroling Authority, which sets the minimum term of imprisonment, pursuant to HRS § 706-669 (1993). Bernades, 71 Haw. at 488, 795 P.2d at 844. In State v. Kido, 3 Haw.App. 516, 654 P.2d 1351 (1982), the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) explained the history of the legislature's allocation of the power to sentence: Prior to 1965, the paroling authority recommended and the judiciary set the minimum sentence which the convicted defendant was required to serve before becoming eligible for parole and discharge. [Revised Laws of Hawai'i (RLH)] § 258-52 (1955). In 1965, RLH § 258-52[ ] was amended by Act 102 to take away from the judiciary and instead give to the paroling authority the sole authority to determine minimum terms of imprisonment. Section 258-52, as amended, was recodified in 1968 as HRS § 711-76, pursuant to Act 16 (1968). In 1972, HRS § 711-76 was repealed by Act 9 which enacted the Hawaii Penal Code. As part of the Hawaii Penal Code, HRS § 706-669 [(1993)] now provides, inter alia: § 706-669 Procedure for determining minimum term of imprisonment. (1) When a person has been sentenced to an indeterminate or an extended term of imprisonment, the Hawaii paroling authority shall, as soon as practicable but no later than six months after commitment to the custody of the director of the department of social services and housing hold a hearing, and on the basis of the hearing make an order fixing the minimum term of imprisonment to be served before the prisoner shall become eligible for parole. As the commentary on HRS § 706-669 states, This section continues the policy of the previous law of vesting in the Board of Paroles & Pardons the exclusive authority to determine the minimum time which must be served before the prisoner will be eligible for parole. The legislature has also restricted the judiciary's authority with respect to the kinds of sentences which it may impose. Section 706-660, HRS (1976) provided: § 706-660 Sentence of imprisonment for felony; ordinary terms. A person who has been convicted of a felony may be sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment except as provided for in section 706-660.1 relating to the use of firearms in certain felony offenses. When ordering such a sentence, the court shall impose the maximum length of imprisonment which shall be as follows: (1) For a class A felony  20 years; (2) For a class B felony  10 years; and (3) For a class C felony  5 years.[ [9] ] The minimum length of imprisonment shall be determined by the Hawaii paroling authority in accordance with section 706-669. Apparently referring to the amendments made by Act 102 (1965), the commentary to HRS § 706-660 (1976) states, inter alia: In 1965, the Legislature enacted a law designed to end judicially imposed inconsistent sentences of imprisonment. This policy  known as true indeterminate sentencing  is continued. The court's discretion is limited to choosing between imprisonment and other modes of sentencing. Once the court has decided to sentence a felon to imprisonment, the actual time of release is determined by parole authorities. Having decided on imprisonment, the court must then impose the maximum term authorized.... [Footnotes omitted.] Id. at 524-25, 654 P.2d at 1357-59. Moreover, the commentary to HRS § 706-660 contains a footnote, which states that [i]t must, however, be remembered that the Code grants the court the power to impose an extended term of imprisonment pursuant to HRS § 706-661 (1993 & Supp.2003). [10] In contrast to Hawaii's indeterminate sentencing scheme, at issue in Blakely was Washington's determinate sentencing structure and, particularly, the sentencing court's imposition of a sentence thirty-seven months in excess of the fifty-three-month upward limit of the statutorily enumerated standard range. Blakely, ___ U.S. at ___, 124 S.Ct. at 2537. Washington codified a ten-year (or 120-month) maximum sentence for class B felonies in Revised Code of Washington (RCW) § 9A.20.021(1)(b). Id. Nevertheless, the presumptive guideline range for a class B felony was set between forty-nine and fifty-three months. Id. at 2535. As noted supra in Section III.A, Blakely construed the upward limit of the presumptive guideline range, and not the ten-year maximum sentence for a class B felony, as the statutory maximum. The Blakely majority explained, consistent with Apprendi, that any fact permitting sentencing in excess of the upward limit of the presumptive guideline range must be found by the trier of fact at trial beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 2537. At issue in Blakely was the fact that the sentencing court's finding of an aggravating fact  i.e., that the defendant had acted with deliberate cruelty  subjected the defendant to an enhanced sentence under Washington's determinate sentencing guideline scheme, notwithstanding that the defendant had not admitted the fact in a guilty plea, nor had a jury found it at trial beyond a reasonable doubt. Therein lies the distinction between Hawaii's enhanced sentencing structure, set forth in HRS § 706-662, and Washington's determinate sentencing guideline scheme: (1) In Hawai'i, the sentencing scheme is indeterminate, and there is no presumptive guideline range; and (2) the sentencing court could not have subjected the defendant to an extended term of imprisonment based on the same facts in Blakely without submitting those facts to the trier of fact, because the aggravating factor of deliberate cruelty entailed an intrinsic fact so inextricably enmeshed in the defendant's actions in committing the offense charged ... that the Hawai'i Constitution requires that these findings be made by the trier of fact[.] Kaua, 102 Hawai'i at 11, 72 P.3d at 483 (quoting Tafoya, 91 Hawai'i at 271-72, 982 P.2d at 900-01).