Haw. Rev. Stat. » Haw. Rev. Stat. / Chapter 706
Hawaii Revised Statutes

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 706-628 (2026)

  REPEALED

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

     §706-628  REPEALED.  L 1985, c 192, §3.

 

Cross References

 

  For similar provisions, see §706-625.

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases, 1978–2008 · leading case: State v. Akana, 706 P.2d 1300 (Haw. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Akana, 706 P.2d 1300 (Haw. 1985). · cites it 22× “It is obvious that the legislature was deeply concerned over a probationer committing a felony during his period of probation; otherwise, the legislature would not have amended the statute in 1980 to mandate a revocation.”
State v. Palama, 612 P.2d 1168 (Haw. 1980). · cites it 22× “HRS § 706-628 states the following: (1) At any time before the discharge of the defendant or the termination of the period of probation or suspension of sentence, the court, if satisfied that the defendant has inexcusably failed to comply with a substantial requirement imposed…”
State v. Naone, 990 P.2d 1171 (Haw. App. 1999). · cites it 12× “[8] HRS § 706-628 was repealed by 1985 Haw. Sess.”
State v. Viloria, 759 P.2d 1376 (Haw. 1988). · cites it 12× “On July 17,1984, the State moved to revoke Defendant’s probation under HRS § 706-628 (Supp. 1984). On January 3,1985, the lower court found that Defendant inexcusably failed to comply with substantial requirements of probation, revoked his probation, and resentenced him to…”
State v. Shannon, 185 P.3d 200 (Haw. 2008). · cites it 8× “[30] Palama discussed HRS § 706-628, which at the time governed the revocation of probation or suspension of sentence.”
In Re a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum Re Kaohu, 620 P.2d 1082 (Haw. App. 1980). · cites it 8× “The statutory scheme strikes the balance by allowing revocation based on commission of a new crime only if (and therefore after) the probationer is convicted [see § 706-628), while granting the *475 probation court the discretionary authority to commit the probationer without…”
State v. Perry, 998 P.2d 70 (Haw. App. 2000). · cites it 6× “2d 1300 (1985), the Hawai'i Supreme Court construed the term "convicted” as used in the context of HRS § 706-628, the precursor to HRS § 706-625(e).”
State v. Riveira, 993 P.2d 580 (Haw. App. 2000). · cites it 4× “For the purpose of revocation of probation, HRS § 706-628, however, the term "conviction" does not extend beyond the ascertainment of guilt or a guilty plea.”
State v. Wong, 829 P.2d 1325 (Haw. 1992). · cites it 6× “1975) which provided: (1) At any time before the discharge of the defendant or the termination of the period of probation or suspension of sentence, the court, if satisfied that the defendant has inexcusably failed to comply with a substantial requirement imposed as a condition…”
State v. Martinez, 580 P.2d 1282 (Haw. 1978). · cites it 2× “HRS § 706-628. It is manifest that a probation condition which is so vague that it fails to provide a guide for the defendant’s behavior would not support a revocation of probation.”
State v. Nakamura, 581 P.2d 759 (Haw. 1978). · cites it 2× “Moreover, there is nothing in the record to show ¡hat the court, at the time it imposed its special condition, was even aware of the existence of the so-called Habilitat “house rule” which was applied to the defendant. The court may revoke a defendant’s probation only where it…”
State v. Kala, 718 P.2d 1117 (Haw. App. 1986). · cites it 14× “In 1985, HRS § 706-628 was repealed and its provisions were incorporated in HRS § 706-625(c) and (e).”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 706-628(1) — 7 cases
State v. Palama, 612 P.2d 1168 (Haw. 1980). “HRS § 706-628 states the following: (1) At any time before the discharge of the defendant or the termination of the period of probation or suspension of sentence, the court, if satisfied that the defendant has inexcusably failed to comply with a substantial requirement imposed…”
State v. Naone, 990 P.2d 1171 (Haw. App. 1999). “[8] HRS § 706-628 was repealed by 1985 Haw. Sess.”
State v. Nakamura, 581 P.2d 759 (Haw. 1978). “Moreover, there is nothing in the record to show ¡hat the court, at the time it imposed its special condition, was even aware of the existence of the so-called Habilitat “house rule” which was applied to the defendant. The court may revoke a defendant’s probation only where it…”
In Re a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum Re Kaohu, 620 P.2d 1082 (Haw. App. 1980). “The statutory scheme strikes the balance by allowing revocation based on commission of a new crime only if (and therefore after) the probationer is convicted [see § 706-628), while granting the *475 probation court the discretionary authority to commit the probationer without…”
State v. Wong, 829 P.2d 1325 (Haw. 1992). “1975) which provided: (1) At any time before the discharge of the defendant or the termination of the period of probation or suspension of sentence, the court, if satisfied that the defendant has inexcusably failed to comply with a substantial requirement imposed as a condition…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 706-628(2) — 2 cases
State v. Viloria, 759 P.2d 1376 (Haw. 1988). “On July 17,1984, the State moved to revoke Defendant’s probation under HRS § 706-628 (Supp. 1984). On January 3,1985, the lower court found that Defendant inexcusably failed to comply with substantial requirements of probation, revoked his probation, and resentenced him to…”
State v. Kala, 718 P.2d 1117 (Haw. App. 1986). “In 1985, HRS § 706-628 was repealed and its provisions were incorporated in HRS § 706-625(c) and (e).”
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.