§706-645 Revocation of fine or restitution.
(1) A defendant who has been sentenced to pay a fine or restitution and who is
not in contumacious default in the payment thereof may at any time petition the
court which sentenced the defendant for a revocation of the fine or restitution
or of any unpaid portion thereof.
(2) If it appears to the satisfaction of the
court that the circumstances which warranted the imposition of the fine or
restitution have changed, or that it would otherwise be unjust to require
payment, the court may revoke the fine or restitution or the unpaid portion
thereof in whole or in part. Prior to revocation, the court shall afford the
prosecuting attorney an opportunity to be heard. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; am L
1986, c 314, §37; gen ch 1992]
COMMENTARY ON §706-645
This section allows a defendant, who is not in contumacious
default, to voluntarily appear and seek the relief that would be accorded to
the defendant if the defendant's appearance were involuntary under §706-644.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1995–2021 · leading case:
State v. Gaylord, 890 P.2d 1167 (Haw. 1995).
State v. Gaylord, 890 P.2d 1167 (Haw. 1995).
· cites it 8× “HRS § 706-645 (Supp.1992) provides: Revocation of fine or restitution.”
State v. Kealoha., 414 P.3d 98 (Haw. 2018).
· cites it 6× “Thus, Kealoha could also seek relief under HRS § 706-645 in a Rule 40 petition. For these reasons, Kealoha's requested relief is denied without prejudice to him seeking appropriate relief in the circuit court.”
Rapozo v. State., 497 P.3d 81 (Haw. 2021).
· cites it 4× “HRS § 706-645 states in relevant part: (2) If it appears to the satisfaction of the court that the circumstances which warranted the imposition of the fine or restitution have changed, or that it would otherwise be unjust to require payment, the court may revoke the fine or…”
State v. Martin, 79 P.3d 686 (Haw. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “1992) and HRS § 706-645 (Supp.1992) in support of this last phrase.”
Hueston v. State, 485 P.3d 1119 (Haw. App. 2021).
· cites it 13× “"5/ Hueston further argues that these allegations "if taken as true, could have potentially changed the restitution amount to which [Hueston] was sentenced.”
Rapozo v. State, 482 P.3d 567 (Haw. App. 2021).
· cites it 12× “(3) Rapozo contends: [The] Circuit Court of the First Circuit committed error by failing to address [Rapozo]'s factual Claims [sic] of restitution challenge brought pursuant to HRS § 706-645 within the instant Petition on appeal.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 706-645(1) — 1 case
State v. Kealoha., 414 P.3d 98 (Haw. 2018).
“Thus, Kealoha could also seek relief under HRS § 706-645 in a Rule 40 petition. For these reasons, Kealoha's requested relief is denied without prejudice to him seeking appropriate relief in the circuit court.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 706-645(2) — 1 case
State v. Kealoha., 414 P.3d 98 (Haw. 2018).
“Thus, Kealoha could also seek relief under HRS § 706-645 in a Rule 40 petition. For these reasons, Kealoha's requested relief is denied without prejudice to him seeking appropriate relief in the circuit court.”
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.