§353-69 Parole when. [Repeal and
reenactment on July 1, 2018, by L 2013, c 67, §2 deleted by 2017, c 77, §2.] Except
as provided in section 706-670, 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 incompatible with the welfare and safety
of society. [L 1917, c 103, §4; RL 1925, §1563; am L 1931, c 126, §5; RL 1935,
§6457; RL 1945, §3962; RL 1955, §83-67; HRS §353-69; am L 1976, c 92, pt of §8;
gen ch 1985; am L 2012, c 139, §§11, 14(4); am L 2016, C 231, §69]
Case Notes
No due process liberty interest in parole is created under
this section. 795 F. Supp. 1020 (1992).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1992–2021 · leading case:
Rapozo v. State., 497 P.3d 81 (Haw. 2021).
Rapozo v. State., 497 P.3d 81 (Haw. 2021).
· cites it 2× “) HRS § 353-69 (2015) states: Excepted as provided in section 706-670, 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…”
Turner v. Hawai'i Paroling Auth., 1 P.3d 768 (Haw. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “” HRS § 353-69. The HPA may suspend or revoke a prisoner’s parole “in the event .”
Neal v. Shimoda, 131 F.3d 818 (9th Cir. 1997).
“Under Haw.Rev.Stat. § 353-69, the Hawaii Parole Authority has the authority to deny an1 inmate’s request for parole when it has not been shown that "there is a reasonable probability that the prisoner concerned will live and remain at liberty without violating the law and that…”
Ruh v. Hawaii, 185 F. Supp. 3d 1268 (D. Haw. 2016).
· cites it 2× “HRS § 353-69. The HPA’s revocation of Petitioner’s parole for three serious parole violations, after a revocation hearing was held (to which no objection is made), supports a careful exercise of HPA discretion to protect the “welfare and safety of society.”
Mujahid v. Apao, 795 F. Supp. 1020 (D. Haw. 1992).
· cites it 2× “Haw.Rev.Stat. § 353-69 (Michie 1988) (emphasis added).”
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.