§353-68 Parole, how initiated and granted.
(a) Paroles may be granted by the Hawaii paroling authority at any time after
the prisoner has served the minimum term of imprisonment fixed according to
law; provided that where a fine has also been imposed, which has not been paid,
and if the prisoner has been imprisoned for at least thirty days, the paroling
authority upon being satisfied that the prisoner has petitioned the court for
revocation of all or part of such fine pursuant to section 706-645, may
nevertheless parole the prisoner without payment of the fine, either with or
without the condition, subject to determination by the court under section
706-645, that while on such parole the prisoner make payment of the fine as the
paroling authority deems proper under the circumstances. The proceedings to
obtain parole may be initiated by the written recommendation of the
superintendent to the paroling authority or may be initiated by the paroling
authority without any such recommendation.
(b) The governor shall have like power to
revoke the parole of any prisoner. The written authority of the governor shall
likewise be sufficient to authorize any police officer to retake and return the
prisoner to prison. The governor's written order revoking the parole shall
have the same force and effect and be executed in like manner as the order of
the chairperson of the paroling authority.
(c) The paroling authority shall act by
majority of all its members in respect of all proceedings touching the parole
of prisoners. [L 1931, c 126, §4; RL 1935, §6456; am L 1939, c 203, pt of §6;
am L 1943, c 207, §2; RL 1945, §3961; RL 1955, §83-66; am L 1957, c 308, §3; am
L 1963, c 34, §1; HRS §353-68; am L 1976, c 92, pt of §8; am L 1981, c 163, §1;
gen ch 1985, 1993]
Cross References
Consequences of nonpayment of fine, see §706-644.
Parole procedure, see §706-670.
Case Notes
No due process liberty interest in parole is created under
this section. 795 F. Supp. 1020 (1992).
Parole and minimum sentence under prior law. 28 H. 268
(1925).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases, 1982–2016 · leading case:
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995).
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995).
· cites it 2× “Nothing in Hawaii's code requires the parole board to deny parole in the face of a misconduct record or to grant parole in its absence, Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 353-68 , 353-69 (1985), even though misconduct is by regulation a relevant consideration, Haw.”
Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 2× “." Nev. Rev.Stat. § 213.1099(2). See also Idaho Code Ann.”
State v. Kido, 654 P.2d 1351 (Haw. App. 1982).
· cites it 5× “They were recodified as HRS §§ 353-68 and 353-70, respectively, pursuant to Act 16 (1968).”
Ruh v. Hawaii, 185 F. Supp. 3d 1268 (D. Haw. 2016).
· cites it 2× “In particular, Hawaii law states: No parole shall be granted unless it appears to the Hawaii Paroling Authority that there is a reasonable probability that the prisoner concerned will live and remain at liberty without violating the law and that the prisoner’s release is not…”
Mujahid v. Apao, 795 F. Supp. 1020 (D. Haw. 1992).
· cites it 2× “Haw.Rev.Stat. § 353-68(a) (Michie 1988). The only compulsory language in the Hawaii statute is written in the negative, which mitigates against a finding that Hawaii inmates have a reasonable expectation of a liberty interest.”
Castillo v. State, 786 So. 2d 1147 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000).
“Nothing in Hawaii’s code requires the parole board to deny parole in the face of a misconduct record or to grant parole in its absence, Haw.Rev.Stat. §§ 353-68, 353-69 (1985), even though the misconduct is by regulation a relevant consideration.”
Tierney v. Matsuoka (Haw. 2012).
· cites it 2× “See HRS §§ 353-68 (1993), 353-70 (1993) and 706-670 (1993).”
Hayward v. Marshall (9th Cir. 2010).
“Hawaii provides that “[p]aroles may be granted by the Hawaii paroling authority at any time after the prisoner has served the minimum term of imprisonment,” Haw. Rev. Stat. § 353-68 (a), but “[p]arole shall not be granted unless it appears to the Authority that there is a…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 353-68(a) — 3 cases
Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2010).
“." Nev. Rev.Stat. § 213.1099(2). See also Idaho Code Ann.”
Ruh v. Hawaii, 185 F. Supp. 3d 1268 (D. Haw. 2016).
“In particular, Hawaii law states: No parole shall be granted unless it appears to the Hawaii Paroling Authority that there is a reasonable probability that the prisoner concerned will live and remain at liberty without violating the law and that the prisoner’s release is not…”
Mujahid v. Apao, 795 F. Supp. 1020 (D. Haw. 1992).
“Haw.Rev.Stat. § 353-68(a) (Michie 1988). The only compulsory language in the Hawaii statute is written in the negative, which mitigates against a finding that Hawaii inmates have a reasonable expectation of a liberty interest.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.