Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 641-11 (2026)

  From circuit courts

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section HI-LEGcapitol.hawaii.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

PART II.  APPEALS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

 

     §641-11  From circuit courts.  Any party aggrieved by the judgment of a circuit court in a criminal matter may appeal to the intermediate appellate court, subject to chapter 602, in the manner and within the time provided by the rules of court.  The sentence of the court in a criminal case shall be the judgment.  All appeals shall be filed with the clerk of the supreme court and shall be subject to one filing fee. [L 1892, c 95, §1; am L 1919, c 44, §1; RL 1925, §2521; am L 1925, c 211, §1; am L 1931, c 37, §1; RL 1935, §3550; RL 1945, §9551; RL 1955, §212-1; HRS §641-11; am L 1970, c 188, §39; am L 1972, c 89, pt of §5; am L 1979, c 111, §6(2); gen ch 1985; am L 1989, c 62, §1; am L 2004, c 202, §68; am L 2006, c 94, §1; am L 2010, c 109, §1]

 

Note

 

  As to provision that sentence of the court is the judgment, see §641-18, suspension of sentence, and HRPP rule 32(c), entry of judgment.

 

Rules of Court

 

  Appeals, when taken, see HRAP rule 4.

  Post-conviction proceedings and documents, see HRPP rule 40.

 

Law Journals and Reviews

 

  The Application of the Collateral Order Doctrine to Criminal Appeals in Hawai‘i.  19 UH L. Rev. 73 (1997).

 

Case Notes

 

  For purposes of appeal, judgment of conviction is not final where it does not include any sentence.  54 H. 485, 510 P.2d 88 (1973).

  Where no notice of judgment is given, period for filing appeal may be extended.  56 H. 444, 540 P.2d 61 (1971).

  Failure of appointed counsel to give timely notice of appeal did not foreclose defendant's right to appeal.  57 H. 268, 554 P.2d 236 (1976).

  Where there is no announcement of the decision and no notice of entry of judgment is given, time for filing notice of appeal does not run until notice is in fact received.  59 H. 255, 580 P.2d 63 (1978).

  Review of denial of reduction of sentences proper since new standards of court discretion had been adopted.  60 H. 309, 588 P.2d 927 (1979).

  Appeal permitted only from a final judgment or sentence.  63 H. 9, 619 P.2d 1076 (1980).

  Jurisdictional defect in appeal cannot be waived by the parties or disregarded by the appellate court.  63 H. 9, 619 P.2d 1076 (1980).

  Where charges against criminal defendant were dismissed, defendant was not an "aggrieved party" with standing to appeal an order approving partial fees.  66 H. 366, 663 P.2d 630 (1983).

  Where defendants contended there was another exception to finality of judgment requirement of this section, specifically, that an order denying a motion to dismiss an indictment based on double jeopardy grounds fell into collateral order exception to final judgment rule, collateral order exception permitted an interlocutory appeal of an order denying a pretrial motion to dismiss an indictment on double jeopardy grounds.  77 H. 351, 884 P.2d 729 (1994).

  Supreme court lacked appellate jurisdiction to hear defendant's appeal of defendant's acquittal on count III kidnapping where defendant was not an "aggrieved" party within the meaning of this section; because defendant would remain under health director's custody based on trial court's acquittals as to counts I and II, which would have warranted convictions but for defendant's affirmative defense of insanity, defendant was not aggrieved by trial court's acquittal on count III as acquittal did not adversely impact defendant's rights.  102 H. 130, 73 P.3d 668 (2003).

  Where the case was a criminal matter filed by plaintiff State of Hawaii against defendant and the police department (HPD) was not a party to the case, HPD, as a nonparty, was not authorized to appeal the respondent judge's order denying HPD's motion to quash defendant's subpoena duces tecum pursuant to this section if judgment was entered against defendant; HPD was also not authorized to appeal the order pursuant to the interlocutory appeal statute for defendants, §641-17, or the appeal statute for the prosecution, §641-13; thus, having no remedy by way of appeal, HPD properly sought redress from the order by mandamus.  122 H. 204, 225 P.3d 646 (2010).

  Under this section, a defendant may appeal from an order of the circuit court dismissing the proceedings without prejudice.  140 H. 482, 403 P.3d 259 (2017).

  Defendant not "aggrieved party" with standing to appeal order granting partial fees.  6 H. App. 20, 709 P.2d 105 (1985).

  Appellate court lacked jurisdiction under this section and HRAP rule 4(b) where defendant failed to appeal within the thirty-day time period mandated; defendant's motion to withdraw no contest plea did not "reopen" final judgment such that order denying defendant's motion became the appealable final judgment under this section and HRAP rule 4(b).  96 H. 462 (App.), 32 P.3d 106 (2001).

  A judgment of acquittal and commitment based on an insanity defense constitutes a "sentence" for purposes of this section and, thus, a medication order issued pursuant to the judgment constitutes an appealable post-judgment order.  139 H. 192 (App.), 386 P.3d 476 (2016).

  If a judgment of acquittal and commitment based on an insanity defense is not an appealable judgment under this section, then defendant's medication order that authorized the involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication is appealable under the collateral order doctrine.  139 H. 192 (App.), 386 P.3d 476 (2016).

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 66 cases (20 in the last 5 years), 1973–2025 · leading case: State v. Nicol., 403 P.3d 259 (Haw. 2017).
State v. Nicol., 403 P.3d 259 (Haw. 2017). · cites it 100× “The State contended that circuit court defendants may only appeal from the following: (1) “the sentence of the court in a criminal case” based on HRS § 641-11 (Supp. 2004), which sets forth the right of appeal in circuit court criminal cases; (2) a certified interlocutory order…”
State v. Baxley, 73 P.3d 668 (Haw. 2003). · cites it 52× “HRS § 641-11 (1993) [7] provides the statutory basis upon which a defendant may appeal from a judgment of the circuit court.”
State v. Uchima., 464 P.3d 852 (Haw. 2020). · cites it 14× “2d 966, 975 (1993) (citing HRS §§ 641-11 (Supp. 1991) and 641-12 (1985)).”
State v. Kealaiki, 22 P.3d 588 (Haw. 2001). · cites it 16× “which followed the Conditional Plea entered January 18, 2000,” pursuant to an order extending the time for appeal.”
Attorney's Fees of Mohr v. Powers, 32 P.3d 647 (Haw. 2001). · cites it 8× “2d 105 (1985), the ICA determined that, under HRS § 641-11 (providing for appeals from final orders of circuit courts by any aggrieved party ), a court-appointed attorney, as the "aggrieved party," has standing to appeal an order awarding attorney's fees under HRS § 802-5.”
State v. Ui, 663 P.2d 630 (Haw. 1983). · cites it 11× “The State, while supporting the lower court’s interpretation of the statute, questions this court’s jurisdiction to entertain this appeal under HRS § 641-11, the provision relied upon by appellant.”
State v. Hern, 323 P.3d 1241 (Haw. App. 2013). · cites it 8× “HRS § 641-11 (Supp.2012) *63 authorizes appeals in criminal proceedings "[f]rom circuit courts,” and HRS § 641-12 (Supp.”
State v. Bohannon, 74 P.3d 980 (Haw. 2003). · cites it 4× “This construction is further buttressed by HRS § 641-11 (1993), which contrastingly states, regarding appeals from the circuit court, that "[a]ny party deeming oneself aggrieved by the judgment of a circuit court in a criminal matter, may appeal to the supreme court, subject to…”
State v. Johnson, 32 P.3d 106 (Haw. App. 2001). · cites it 10× “Defendant first contends that jurisdiction is founded on HRS § 641-11. HRS § 641-11 (1993) provides, in pertinent part, that [a]ny party deeming oneself aggrieved by the judgment of a circuit court in a criminal matter, may appeal to the supreme court, subject to chapter 602 in…”
State v. Adam, 40 P.3d 877 (Haw. 2002). · cites it 4× “In criminal cases, appeals are governed by HRS § 641-11 (1993), which states in pertinent part, Any party deeming oneself aggrieved by the judgment of a circuit court in a criminal matter, may appeal to the supreme court, subject to chapter 602 in the manner and within the time…”
State v. Pacquing., 389 P.3d 897 (Haw. 2016). · cites it 2× “Pacquing responds that he is permitted to file a cross-appeal pursuant to HRS § 641-11 (Supp. 2013) and this court's supervisory powers under HRS § 602-4 (1993).”
State v. Johnston, 619 P.2d 1076 (Haw. 1980). · cites it 8× “However, HRS § 641-11 states: Any party deeming himself aggrieved by the judgment of a circuit court in a criminal matter, may appeal to the supreme court, subject to chapter 602 in the manner and within the time provided by the Hawaii Rules of Criminal Procedure. The sentence…”
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.