Opinion ID: 2514968
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The ICA Misinterpreted the Phrase Maximum Term of Imprisonment Possible.

Text: As an initial matter, we examine the statutory phrase maximum term of imprisonment possible in HRS § 706-606.5(f). In Colorado's sentencing scheme, a prisoner serves a term of imprisonment followed by a mandatory period of parole. See Colo.Rev.Stat. § 18-1-105(1)(a)(V)(A)(Westlaw, Colorado Statutes 1996-Annotated). As the ICA explained, Colorado's mandatory parole is different than parole under traditional sentencing schemes. Under traditional sentencing schemes, an inmate who is released on parole exchanges a portion of his or her prison term for a period of non-imprisonment custody. Craig v. People, 986 P.2d 951, 958 n. 3 (Colo.1999). This is basically how parole operates in Hawai`i. In Colorado, however, even a prisoner who serves his or her entire prison sentence is still subject to the conditions of parole for the additional mandatory period. Id. 116 Hawai`i at 387, 173 P.3d at 535. Conceptually, a term of parole is distinct from a term of imprisonment. See, e.g., HRS § 706-670 (Supp.2006) (A sentence to an indeterminate term of imprisonment under this chapter includes as a separate portion of the sentence a term of parole or of recommitment for violation of the conditions of parole.). By failing to distinguish the two penal concepts, the ICA erroneously concluded that Heggland's mandatory parole term was part of the maximum term of imprisonment possible for his offense. According to the ICA's logic, because Heggland could be reincarcerated for violating a term of his mandatory parole, and was still serving that term at the time of the PDD offense, the offense was committed within the maximum term of imprisonment possible. 116 Hawai`i at 388, 173 P.3d at 535. The ICA's interpretation does not properly heed the words of the statute. In Hawai`i, the phrase term of imprisonment carries a particular meaning. After convicting a defendant, a trial court may sentence the defendant to a term of imprisonment as authorized by part IV of HRS chapter 706. See HRS § 706-605(c) (1993); HRS chapter 706, part IV (entitled Imprisonment). Hawai`i has an indeterminate sentencing system, under which the court sentences a convicted defendant to a maximum term of imprisonment but leaves the precise term to be fixed by the Hawai`i Paroling Authority (HPA). Defendants who commit class B felonies, for example, are sentenced to an indeterminate term with a maximum length of imprisonment of 10 years. HRS § 706-660 (1993). Outside of any mandatory minimum sentences required by law, the HPA determines the minimum length of imprisonment. Id.; HRS § 706-669 (1993 & Supp.2007). In Hawai`i, any period of parole must end after the maximum term of imprisonment expires. HRS § 706-669(5). See also Williamson v. Hawaii Paroling Auth., 97 Hawai`i 183, 191, 35 P.3d 210, 218 (2001) (explaining that by setting [a prisoner's] minimum term at a period equal to his maximum sentence, the HPA renders a prisoner effectively ineligible for parole). Therefore, in Hawai`i, a convicted defendant is sentenced to a term of imprisonment that corresponds to the statutory maximum for the crime but only serves that portion of the maximum term set by the HPA. [5] While any parole served takes place within the duration of the maximum term of imprisonment, the term of imprisonment and term of parole remain distinct concepts. The phrase maximum term of imprisonment possible in HRS § 706-606.5(2)(f) therefore refers to the maximum term of imprisonment to which a court in a foreign jurisdiction may possibly sentence a convicted defendant. The ICA misreads the phrase to include any possible imprisonment that may arise from a sentence, even if not part of the original term of imprisonment. This construction incorrectly interprets the term possible to modify imprisonment rather than maximum term of imprisonment. The latter interpretation is supported by reading the phrase as a whole and is more consistent with the context of Hawai`i sentencing law. Therefore, the ICA's interpretation does not comport with the way the term maximum term of imprisonment functions in Hawai`i law. By its use of the term possible, the legislature has made clear that the mandatory minimum statute applies when an offense is committed within the maximum term of imprisonment to which a foreign court possibly could have sentenced a convicted defendant, rather than the actual term of imprisonment the defendant was required to serve. [6]