Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 660
Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 660-3 (2026)

  Issuable by whom

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

     §660-3  Issuable by whom.  The supreme court, the justices thereof, and the circuit courts may issue writs of habeas corpus in cases in which persons are unlawfully restrained of their liberty; provided that persons committed or detained by order of the family court or under chapter 334 may, and if the jurisdiction of the family court is exclusive, shall, prosecute their applications in the family court. [L 1870, c 32, §32; am L 1893-4, c 75, §1; am L 1903, c 79, §3; RL 1925, §2727; RL 1935, §4312; RL 1945, §10353; RL 1955, §239-3; HRS §660-3; am L 1972, c 90, §5(a)]

Cross References

 

  See §602-5.

  Exclusive jurisdiction of family court, in what cases, see §§571-11 and 571-14.

 

Case Notes

 

  Constitutional right to counsel does not apply to habeas corpus proceedings.  51 H. 318, 459 P.2d 376 (1969).

  Defendant who alleges that defendant pleaded guilty because of prior coerced confession is not, without more, entitled to hearing on petition for habeas corpus.  53 H. 274, 492 P.2d 953 (1972).

  Without a special reason appellate court will not exercise its original jurisdiction in habeas corpus proceedings when relief is available in a lower court.  57 H. 411, 557 P.2d 787 (1976).

  Writ sought on behalf of certain persons.  Attache of foreign legation.  1 H. 353 (1856).

  Deserting seamen.  2 H. 112 (1858); 6 H. 704 (1888).

  Fugitives held for extradition.  5 H. 573 (1886); 20 H. 319 (1910); 21 H. 526 (1913); 48 H. 508, 405 P.2d 309 (1965).

  Insane persons.  3 U.S.D.C. Haw. 404 (1909); 19 H. 346 (1909); 19 H. 576 (1909).

  Lepers.  2 U.S.D.C. Haw. 227 (1905); 19 H. 218 (1908).

  Minors.  29 H. 830 (1927); 31 H. 328 (1930); 32 H. 731 (1933); 33 H. 106 (1934).

  Persons detained on shipboard.  3 H. 503 (1873).

  For relief against cruel and unusual punishment.  31 H. 982 (1931).

  As means of enforcing foreign decree awarding custody of children.  49 H. 20, 407 P.2d 885 (1965).

  Relief from commitment may be had on habeas corpus.  Under statute authorizing arrest of debtors about to abscond.  1 H. 340 (1856); 6 H. 633 (1886).

  Relief from commitment for alleged contempt.  13 H. 575 (1901); 18 H. 670 (1907); 44 H. 271, 353 P.2d 631 (1960).

  No release of persons convicted and restrained by virtue of judgment unless judgment is void.  211 U.S. 146 (1908); 3 U.S.D.C. Haw. 502 (1910); 7 H. 95 (1887); 13 H. 102 (1900); 15 H. 276 (1903); 17 H. 338 (1906); 20 H. 120 (1910); 25 H. 414, 417 (1920).

  Form of mittimus.  Failure to completely describe the offense in the mittimus not ground for issuance of writ where record shows valid sentence.  6 H. 343 (1882); 7 H. 95 (1887). 

  A mittimus correct in form and substance is a good defense to a claim of illegal imprisonment.  18 H. 500 (1907). 

  Where mittimus of magistrate exceeded jurisdiction in imposition of fine in addition to imprisonment held separable and valid as to imprisonment.  23 H. 766 (1917).

  Sentence must be void on its face in order to entitle convicted person to release on habeas corpus.  2 H. 444 (1861); 9 H. 131 (1893); 10 H. 610 (1897); 17 H. 487 (1906).  See 6 H. 664 (1887); 7 H. 42 (1887).  Habeas corpus raises question only of jurisdiction.  34 H. 484 (1938).

  Cases of illegal sentence.  3 H. 17 (1866); 6 H. 732 (1869); 7 H. 162 (1887); 38 H. 479 (1950).  Magistrate having no criminal jurisdiction over subject matter, prisoner discharged on writ.  6 H. 25 (1870).  Release from commitment under void order.  44 H. 271, 353 P.2d 631 (1960).

  In contempt cases the only question to be inquired into is that of jurisdiction.  1 H. 95 (1852); 11 H. 594 (1898); 14 H. 245 (1902); 19 H. 88 (1908); 29 H. 323 (1926).

  Habeas corpus cannot be used as a substitute for appeal.  10 H. 610 (1897); 27 H. 237 (1923).  Nor to correct errors.  25 H. 414, 417 (1920).  Nor to relitigate issues litigated to final appellate determination.  39 H. 167 (1951), aff'd 209 F.2d 75 (1953).

  Where court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of a criminal complaint and the person of the defendant, habeas corpus does not lie to review the sufficiency of the complaint.  27 H. 237 (1923).

  Appeal lies.  13 H. 534 (1901); 13 H. 575 (1901).  Supersedeas.  19 H. 346 (1909); 26 H. 701 (1923).

  Writ suspended when martial law declared in the 1895 rebellion.  10 H. 29 (1895).  Under proclamation of December 7, 1941, see note to §67 of Organic Act.

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1972–2026 · leading case: Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214 (2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Carey v. Saffold, 536 U.S. 214 (2002). · cites it 2× “030(a)(3) (2002); Haw. Rev. Stat. § 660-3 (1993); Idaho Code § 19-4202 (1) (Supp.”
In the Interest of Doe, 73 P.3d 29 (Haw. 2003). · cites it 8× “The next day, December 7, 2000, both minors filed petitions for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant, inter alia, to HRS § 660-3 (1993), [3] in which they argued that they were being held illegally because the family court had not been presented with any evidence upon which it…”
State v. Baxley, 73 P.3d 668 (Haw. 2003). · cites it 4× “]" HRS § 660-3 (1993) (emphasis added.) See In re Gamaya, 25 Haw.”
Turner v. Hawai'i Paroling Auth., 1 P.3d 768 (Haw. App. 2000). · cites it 4× “]” HRS § 660-3; see also HRS § 660-5. In State v.”
Gordon v. Maesaka-Hirata., 431 P.3d 708 (Haw. 2018). · cites it 2× “See HRS § 660-3 (2016) ("The supreme court ..”
Russell v. Blackwell, 492 P.2d 953 (Haw. 1972). · cites it 4× “Even if the petitioner alleges facts which, if true, would establish the illegality of his convictions, it is the trial judge's function, consistent with the discretion afforded him in HRS § 660-3 and with the spirit of the summary nature of HRS § 660-27, to determine whether a…”
Nonhuman Rights Proj., Inc. v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu (Haw. App. 2026). · cites it 14× “2 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER Regarding writs of habeas corpus, HRS § 660-3 (2016) provides: Issuable by whom.”
Eason v. State (Haw. 2025). · cites it 4× “, concurring and dissenting) (stating “[d]espite the abolishment of the writ of habeas corpus in the post-conviction context by [HRPP] Rule 40(a) (2006), the writ is still available in the pre-conviction context” (citing HRS § 660-3 (2016)). The State further asserts that writs…”
Eleson v. State (Haw. 2018). · cites it 2× “tten notations and minor variations, was also filed in this original proceeding; (5) petitioner contends that the August 29, 2017 filings should have been filed in the “Appellate Court” at 426 Queen Street, which is the address for the Intermediate Court of Appeals; and (6) the…”
Martinez v. Kawamura (Haw. 2023). · cites it 2× “Although this court has original concurrent jurisdiction with the circuit court to issue writs of habeas corpus, see HRS § 660-3 (2016), this court will not exercise its original jurisdiction in habeas corpus proceedings “when relief is available in the lower court and no…”
State v. Slavick (Haw. 2013). · cites it 2× “Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for habeas corpus is denied without prejudice to seeking habeas corpus relief in the circuit court pursuant to HRS § 660-3 (1993). DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 23, 2013.”
Spears v. Frank (Haw. 2010). · cites it 2× “lT lS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied without prejudice to seeking habeas corpus relief in the circuit court pursuant to HRS § 660-3 (l993). DATED: Hon@iulu, Hawai‘i, Jun@ 15, 2010, %»%1~/ /@»-~W- wm A»@Q.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
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.