Free, and it takes a minute. A syfert.com account skips the bot checks on search and case pages, keeps your details and plan under the account icon, and comes with an MCP token for Claude, ChatGPT or any MCP-capable assistant, emailed to you with a link to the setup page and always available from the account icon.
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 2003–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Kamaegreen2 sentences2007The former determination i.e., that the defendant was a multiple offender arose out of multiple felony convictions obtained by proof beyond a reasonable doubt in adjudicative proceedings, before a trier of fact, subject to criminal due process protections, while the latter determination i.e., the necessity finding entailed a traditional exercise of discretion by the sentencing judge, reviewable for abuse of discretion: It is settled that an extended term sentencing hearing is "a separate criminal proceeding apart from the trial of the underlying substantive offense," wherein "all relev 2007The former determination i.e., that the defendant was a multiple offender arose out of multiple felony convictions obtained by proof beyond a reasonable doubt in adjudicative proceedings, before a trier of fact, subject to criminal due process protections, while the latter determination i.e., the necessity finding entailed a traditional exercise of discretion by the sentencing judge, reviewable for abuse of discretion: It is settled that an extended term sentencing hearing is "a separate criminal proceeding apart from the trial of the underlying substantive offense," wherein "all relev | 3 | 3 |
State v. Bringas.green2 sentences2025Bringas, 149 Hawai #i at 443, 494 P.3d at 1176 (explaining "the requirement that an appellate court search for any reasonable way to reconcile a jury's verdicts serves to avoid speculation into the jury's confidential deliberations and to safeguard the result of those deliberations, if at all possible.") Id. (original brackets omitted); see Bringas, 149 Hawai#i at 442, 494 P.3d at 1175 ("[T]he court must first 'search for a reasonable way to read the verdicts as expressing a coherent view of the case, and must exhaust this effort' before it vacates the jury's verdict and remands the case for a 2025Bringas, 149 Hawai #i at 443, 494 P.3d at 1176 (explaining "the requirement that an appellate court search for any reasonable way to reconcile a jury's verdicts serves to avoid speculation into the jury's confidential deliberations and to safeguard the result of those deliberations, if at all possible.") Id. (original brackets omitted); see Bringas, 149 Hawai#i at 442, 494 P.3d at 1175 ("[T]he court must first 'search for a reasonable way to read the verdicts as expressing a coherent view of the case, and must exhaust this effort' before it vacates the jury's verdict and remands the case for a | 1 | 1 |
Carr v. Strodegreen1 sentence2025Bringas, 149 Hawai #i at 443, 494 P.3d at 1176 (explaining "the requirement that an appellate court search for any reasonable way to reconcile a jury's verdicts serves to avoid speculation into the jury's confidential deliberations and to safeguard the result of those deliberations, if at all possible.") Id. (original brackets omitted); see Bringas, 149 Hawai#i at 442, 494 P.3d at 1175 ("[T]he court must first 'search for a reasonable way to read the verdicts as expressing a coherent view of the case, and must exhaust this effort' before it vacates the jury's verdict and remands the case for a | 1 | 1 |
Puckett v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2010See — U.S. at -, 129 S.Ct. at 1428 (concluding that the “plain-error test applies to a forfeited claim, like Puckett’s that the Government failed to meet its obligations under a plea agreement” (emphasis added)). 14 Like the federal courts, neither this court nor the ICA has ever declined to review a breach of a plea agreement on the basis that the government’s breach does not count as a “point of error.” See, e.g., State v. Chincio, 60 Haw. 104, 105 , 588 P.2d 408, 409 (1978) (addressing the breach and stating that “[a]ppellant has presented the point on this appeal that by requesting the ext | 1 | 1 |
State v. Chinciogreen2 sentences2010See — U.S. at -, 129 S.Ct. at 1428 (concluding that the “plain-error test applies to a forfeited claim, like Puckett’s that the Government failed to meet its obligations under a plea agreement” (emphasis added)). 14 Like the federal courts, neither this court nor the ICA has ever declined to review a breach of a plea agreement on the basis that the government’s breach does not count as a “point of error.” See, e.g., State v. Chincio, 60 Haw. 104, 105 , 588 P.2d 408, 409 (1978) (addressing the breach and stating that “[a]ppellant has presented the point on this appeal that by requesting the ext 2010See — U.S. at -, 129 S.Ct. at 1428 (concluding that the “plain-error test applies to a forfeited claim, like Puckett’s that the Government failed to meet its obligations under a plea agreement” (emphasis added)). 14 Like the federal courts, neither this court nor the ICA has ever declined to review a breach of a plea agreement on the basis that the government’s breach does not count as a “point of error.” See, e.g., State v. Chincio, 60 Haw. 104, 105 , 588 P.2d 408, 409 (1978) (addressing the breach and stating that “[a]ppellant has presented the point on this appeal that by requesting the ext | 1 | 1 |
State v. Waiaugreen2 sentences2010See — U.S. at -, 129 S.Ct. at 1428 (concluding that the “plain-error test applies to a forfeited claim, like Puckett’s that the Government failed to meet its obligations under a plea agreement” (emphasis added)). 14 Like the federal courts, neither this court nor the ICA has ever declined to review a breach of a plea agreement on the basis that the government’s breach does not count as a “point of error.” See, e.g., State v. Chincio, 60 Haw. 104, 105 , 588 P.2d 408, 409 (1978) (addressing the breach and stating that “[a]ppellant has presented the point on this appeal that by requesting the ext 2010See — U.S. at -, 129 S.Ct. at 1428 (concluding that the “plain-error test applies to a forfeited claim, like Puckett’s that the Government failed to meet its obligations under a plea agreement” (emphasis added)). 14 Like the federal courts, neither this court nor the ICA has ever declined to review a breach of a plea agreement on the basis that the government’s breach does not count as a “point of error.” See, e.g., State v. Chincio, 60 Haw. 104, 105 , 588 P.2d 408, 409 (1978) (addressing the breach and stating that “[a]ppellant has presented the point on this appeal that by requesting the ext | 1 | 1 |
State v. Abbottgreen2 sentences2010See — U.S. at -, 129 S.Ct. at 1428 (concluding that the “plain-error test applies to a forfeited claim, like Puckett’s that the Government failed to meet its obligations under a plea agreement” (emphasis added)). 14 Like the federal courts, neither this court nor the ICA has ever declined to review a breach of a plea agreement on the basis that the government’s breach does not count as a “point of error.” See, e.g., State v. Chincio, 60 Haw. 104, 105 , 588 P.2d 408, 409 (1978) (addressing the breach and stating that “[a]ppellant has presented the point on this appeal that by requesting the ext 2010See — U.S. at -, 129 S.Ct. at 1428 (concluding that the “plain-error test applies to a forfeited claim, like Puckett’s that the Government failed to meet its obligations under a plea agreement” (emphasis added)). 14 Like the federal courts, neither this court nor the ICA has ever declined to review a breach of a plea agreement on the basis that the government’s breach does not count as a “point of error.” See, e.g., State v. Chincio, 60 Haw. 104, 105 , 588 P.2d 408, 409 (1978) (addressing the breach and stating that “[a]ppellant has presented the point on this appeal that by requesting the ext | 1 | 1 |
State v. Schaefergreen2 sentences2010See — U.S. at -, 129 S.Ct. at 1428 (concluding that the “plain-error test applies to a forfeited claim, like Puckett’s that the Government failed to meet its obligations under a plea agreement” (emphasis added)). 14 Like the federal courts, neither this court nor the ICA has ever declined to review a breach of a plea agreement on the basis that the government’s breach does not count as a “point of error.” See, e.g., State v. Chincio, 60 Haw. 104, 105 , 588 P.2d 408, 409 (1978) (addressing the breach and stating that “[a]ppellant has presented the point on this appeal that by requesting the ext 2010See — U.S. at -, 129 S.Ct. at 1428 (concluding that the “plain-error test applies to a forfeited claim, like Puckett’s that the Government failed to meet its obligations under a plea agreement” (emphasis added)). 14 Like the federal courts, neither this court nor the ICA has ever declined to review a breach of a plea agreement on the basis that the government’s breach does not count as a “point of error.” See, e.g., State v. Chincio, 60 Haw. 104, 105 , 588 P.2d 408, 409 (1978) (addressing the breach and stating that “[a]ppellant has presented the point on this appeal that by requesting the ext | 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. Huelsman
green
2 sentences2007In State v. Huelsman, 60 Haw. 71 , 588 P.2d 394 (1979), this court addressed the procedural protections to be accorded criminal defendants at an extended term sentencing hearing and announced a two-step process in which a sentencing court must engage in order to impose an extended term sentence. 2007In State v. Huelsman, 60 Haw. 71 , 588 P.2d 394 (1979), this court addressed the procedural protections to be accorded criminal defendants at an extended term sentencing hearing and announced a two-step process in which a sentencing court must engage in order to impose an extended term sentence. | 2 | 2003–2007 |
State v. Kaua
green
2 sentences2004"It is settled that an extended term sentencing hearing is `a separate criminal proceeding apart from the trial of the underlying substantive offense,' wherein `all relevant issues should be established by the state beyond a reasonable doubt.'" Kaua, 102 Hawai'i at 9 , 72 P.3d at 481 (quoting State v. Kamae, 56 Haw. 628, 635 , 548 P.2d 632, 637 (1976)). 2004"It is settled that an extended term sentencing hearing is `a separate criminal proceeding apart from the trial of the underlying substantive offense,' wherein `all relevant issues should be established by the state beyond a reasonable doubt.'" Kaua, 102 Hawai'i at 9 , 72 P.3d at 481 (quoting State v. Kamae, 56 Haw. 628, 635 , 548 P.2d 632, 637 (1976)). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.