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

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 706-659 (2026)

  Sentence of imprisonment for class A felony

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

     §706-659  Sentence of imprisonment for class A felony.  Notwithstanding part II; sections 706-605, 706-606, 706-606.5, 706-660.1, 706-661, and 706-662; and any other law to the contrary, a person who has been convicted of a class A felony, except class A felonies defined in chapter 712, part IV, or section 707-702, shall be sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of twenty years without the possibility of suspension of sentence or probation.  The minimum length of imprisonment shall be determined by the Hawaii paroling authority in accordance with section 706-669.  A person who has been convicted of a class A felony defined in chapter 712, part IV, or section 707-702, may be sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment, except as provided for in section 706-660.1 relating to the use of firearms in certain felony offenses and section 706-606.5 relating to repeat offenders.  When ordering such a sentence, the court shall impose the maximum length of imprisonment which shall be twenty years.  The minimum length of imprisonment shall be determined by the Hawaii paroling authority in accordance with section 706-669. [L 1980, c 294, §1; am L 1994, c 229, §3; am L 2012, c 292, §4]

 

COMMENTARY ON §706-659

 

  Act 294, Session Laws 1980, enacted this section to provide for automatic sentence of imprisonment for any person convicted of a class A felony.  The legislature stated:  "Your Committee feels that the seriousness of class A felonies...merits mandatory imprisonment.  This bill effects this purpose by denying suspension of sentence and probation as sentencing options in class A convictions, but retains, through indeterminate sentence, the option of parole by the paroling authority in order that unusual extenuating circumstances can be given due consideration."  Senate Standing Committee Report No. 965-80.

  Act 229, Session Laws 1994, amended this section, inter alia, to allow the court to make an exception for a person convicted of a class A felony defined in chapter 712, part IV, from the mandatory sentence of an indeterminate term of imprisonment without the possibility of suspension of sentence or probation.  The legislature believed that, in certain instances, the public is better served by allowing judges some discretion in evaluating all appropriate sentencing and treatment alternatives available for drug offenders.  Conference Committee Report No. 62.

  Act 292, Session Laws 2012, amended this section by exempting a person convicted of manslaughter from a mandatory indeterminate term of twenty years imprisonment without the possibility of suspension of sentence or probation, but allowing that person to be sentenced to an indeterminate maximum and minimum term of imprisonment to be determined by the court and paroling authority respectively.  The legislature noted that traffic related fatalities were a serious issue and that persons convicted of certain offenses involving traffic fatalities should be dealt with accordingly.  The legislature found that Act 292 provided clarity regarding the imposition of a term of imprisonment, as a condition for probation, for a person convicted of manslaughter, and makes this section consistent with §706-620(2), which allows for a sentence of probation for an offense of manslaughter.  Senate Standing Committee Report No. 3229, Conference Committee Report No. 44-12.

 

Law Journals and Reviews

 

  The Protection of Individual Rights Under Hawai‘i's Constitution.  14 UH L. Rev. 311 (1992).

 

Case Notes

 

  Reasonable inference could be drawn that sentencing court considered special eight-year term under §706-667 prior to sentencing young adult defendant to twenty-year term.  73 H. 259, 831 P.2d 523 (1992).

  Although "drug use" is not a prerequisite to eligibility for probation under this section, the legislature contemplated, consistent with the factors enumerated in §706-621, that the trial court would grant probation in cases where strong mitigating circumstances favored it.  97 H. 440, 39 P.3d 567 (2002).

 

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 50 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1982–2025 · leading case: State v. Kamana'o, 188 P.3d 724 (Haw. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Kamana'o, 188 P.3d 724 (Haw. 2008). · cites it 40× “14 The fact that the repeat offender sentences may be run consecutively in the discretion of the court leaves the question of how the HRS § 706-668 concurrent indeterminate sentencing provision would be affected.”
State v. Savitz, 39 P.3d 567 (Haw. 2002). · cites it 62× “On appeal, Savitz contends that because drug use is not a prerequisite for probation under HRS § 706-659 (Supp.1999), the sentencing court abused its discretion when it denied his request for probation based solely on the fact that he was not a drug user.”
State v. Kamanao, 188 P.3d 724 (Haw. 2008). · cites it 42× “All three counts were Class A felonies, requiring a maximum indeterminate prison sentence of 20 years under HRS § 706-659. [ [6] ] State v. Kamana`o, 103 Hawai`i 315, 82 P.”
State v. Casugay-Badiang. , 305 P.3d 437 (Haw. 2013). · cites it 32× “This court stated that the sentencing court could sentence Lau under HRS § 706-667, without discussing HRS § 706-659’s express “notwithstanding any other law to the contrary” language, which is similar to HRS § 712- 1240.”
State v. Levi, 75 P.3d 1173 (Haw. 2003). · cites it 10× “1986) is illegal because that version of the statute was repealed by Act 314, 11 and (3) “the only recourse” is to sentence Defendant to a twenty-year term as set forth in HRS § 706-659 (Supp.2002), 12 because this *286 statute establishes the current sentence for a class A…”
State v. Yamada, 57 P.3d 467 (Haw. 2002). · cites it 8× “The prosecution did not charge Yamada with the offense of manslaughter. Rather, the prosecution pursued a two-fold strategy.”
State v. Keohokapu, 276 P.3d 660 (Haw. 2012). · cites it 12× “" [30] HRS § 706-659. If, however, the criteria for any of the categories set forth in HRS § 706-662 are satisfied, then the court may impose an indeterminate term of life imprisonment for a class A felony.”
State v. Kido, 654 P.2d 1351 (Haw. App. 1982). · cites it 27× “On March 23, 1981, Kido filed a motion to have the mandatory sentencing provision in HRS § 706-659 declared unconstitutional *518 for violation of the prohibition against cruel and/or unusual punishment, 3 violation of an alleged due process right to the exercise of judicial…”
State v. Hussein. , 229 P.3d 313 (Haw. 2010). · cites it 4× “29 Lau did not deal with consecutive sentencing, as the question in Lau was whether the court erred by not stating reasons for imposing the maximum “indeterminate term of twenty years” for a class A felony under HRS § 706-659, although appellant “could have received a special…”
State v. Hoey, 881 P.2d 504 (Haw. 1994). · cites it 4× “See HRS § 706-659 (1985). 4 .HRS § 707-720 provides in relevant part: Kidnapping.”
State v. Maugaotega, 168 P.3d 562 (Haw. 2007). · cites it 4× “[12] HRS § 706-659 provides in relevant part: Notwithstanding part II[, pertaining to probation]; [HRS §§ ]706-605, 706-606, 706-606.”
State v. Mundon, 219 P.3d 1126 (Haw. 2009). · cites it 4× “See HRS § 706-659 (1993). Further, the statutory maximum for TT1 and attempted assault second (both class C felonies) is five years and the statutory maximum for assault 3d (a misdemeanor) is one year.”
Show all 50 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.