Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Hawaii opinions name it 2 courts 2018–2026 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Hawaii courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Stanley v. State.green2 sentences2026"HRPP Rule 40 allows a petitioner to bring a claim of illegal sentence 'at any time' after final judgment, even if they failed to raise the illegal sentence claim in a previous petition[.]" Stanley v. State, 148 Hawai#i 489, 502, 479 P.3d 107, 120 (2021) (original brackets omitted). 2026"HRPP Rule 40 allows a petitioner to bring a claim of illegal sentence 'at any time' after final judgment, even if they failed to raise the illegal sentence claim in a previous petition[.]" Stanley v. State, 148 Hawai#i 489, 502, 479 P.3d 107, 120 (2021) (original brackets omitted). | 3 | 3 |
Flubacher v. State.green2 sentences2023(Emphases added). 11 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER may be corrected at "any time[.]" HRPP Rule 35(a).12 In Stanley v. State, 148 Hawai#i 489, 502, 479 P.3d 107, 120 (2021), the Hawai#i Supreme Court explained: Thus, put simply, HRPP Rule 40 allows a petitioner to bring a claim of illegal sentence "[a]t any time" after final judgment, even if they failed to raise the illegal sentence claim in a previous petition; if the petitioner states a colorable claim, they are entitled to a hearing under HRPP Rule 40(f). (citing Flubacher v. State, 142 Hawai#i 109, 114 2021See Flubacher v. State, 142 Hawaiʻi 109, 114 n.7, 414 P.3d 161 , 166 n.7 (2018) (“[A]ny analysis of waiver must be made in light of HRPP Rule 40(a)(3), which specifically exempts illegal sentence claims from being waived.”). | 2 | 2 |
Rapozo v. State.green1 sentence2023(Emphases added). 11 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER may be corrected at "any time[.]" HRPP Rule 35(a).12 In Stanley v. State, 148 Hawai#i 489, 502, 479 P.3d 107, 120 (2021), the Hawai#i Supreme Court explained: Thus, put simply, HRPP Rule 40 allows a petitioner to bring a claim of illegal sentence "[a]t any time" after final judgment, even if they failed to raise the illegal sentence claim in a previous petition; if the petitioner states a colorable claim, they are entitled to a hearing under HRPP Rule 40(f). (citing Flubacher v. State, 142 Hawai#i 109, 114 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Hawaii. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Vellina
green
1 sentence2023Livingston raises a new challenge to his consecutive sentences on appeal, that the Circuit Court erred in dismissing the "due process" claim in Claim 9 because the trial court "abused its discretion in sentencing Livingston to consecutive sentences totaling 43 years . . . ."13 Relying on State v. Vellina, 106 Hawai#i 441, 106 P.3d 364 (2005), Livingston argues 12 HRPP Rule 35(a) provides: (a) Correction of Illegal Sentence. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Blakely v. Washington
green
2 sentences2018With respect to the illegal sentence claim, the [ICA] has determined that a defendant sentenced to an extended term that became final after Apprendi but prior to the United States Supreme Court rulings in Blakely v. Washington , 542 U.S. 296 [ 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 ] ... (2004), and United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 [ 125 S.Ct. 738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 ] ... (2005), is not entitled to relief on collateral attack. 2018With respect to the illegal sentence claim, the [ICA] has determined that a defendant sentenced to an extended term that became final after Apprendi but prior to the United States Supreme Court rulings in Blakely v. Washington , 542 U.S. 296 [ 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 ] ... (2004), and United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 [ 125 S.Ct. 738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 ] ... (2005), is not entitled to relief on collateral attack. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
United States v. Booker
green
2 sentences2018With respect to the illegal sentence claim, the [ICA] has determined that a defendant sentenced to an extended term that became final after Apprendi but prior to the United States Supreme Court rulings in Blakely v. Washington , 542 U.S. 296 [ 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 ] ... (2004), and United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 [ 125 S.Ct. 738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 ] ... (2005), is not entitled to relief on collateral attack. 2018With respect to the illegal sentence claim, the [ICA] has determined that a defendant sentenced to an extended term that became final after Apprendi but prior to the United States Supreme Court rulings in Blakely v. Washington , 542 U.S. 296 [ 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 ] ... (2004), and United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 [ 125 S.Ct. 738 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 ] ... (2005), is not entitled to relief on collateral attack. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Loher v. State
red
1 sentence2018Loher v. State , 1 [1]8 Haw[ai'i] 522, 538 [ 193 P.3d 438 ] (Haw.[ ]App. 2008), cert. dismissed (August 5, 2009). 4. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.