§802-5 Appointment of counsel;
compensation. (a) When it shall appear to a judge that a person
requesting the appointment of counsel satisfies the requirements of this
chapter, the judge shall appoint counsel to represent the person at all stages
of the proceedings, including appeal, if any. If conflicting interests exist,
or if the interests of justice require, the court may appoint private counsel,
who shall receive reasonable compensation for necessary expenses, including
travel, the amount of which shall be determined by the court, and reasonable
fees pursuant to subsection (b). All expenses and fees shall be ordered by the
court. Duly ordered payment shall be made upon vouchers approved by the
director of finance and warrants drawn by the comptroller.
(b) The court shall determine the amount of
reasonable compensation to appointed counsel, based on the rate of $150 an
hour; provided that the maximum allowable fee shall not exceed the following
schedule:
(1) Any felony case $12,000
(2) Misdemeanor case-jury trial $6,000
(3) Misdemeanor case-jury waived $3,000
(4) Appeals $9,000
(5) Petty misdemeanor case $1,800
(6) Any other type of administrative or
judicial proceeding, including cases
arising under section 571-11(1) or
571-14(a)(1) or (2) $6,000.
Payment in excess of any maximum provided for
under paragraphs (1) to (6) may be made whenever the court in which the
representation was rendered certifies that the amount of the excess payment is
necessary to provide fair compensation and the payment is approved by the
administrative judge of that court.
(c) The public defender and the judiciary
shall submit to the department of budget and finance for inclusion in the
department's budget request for each fiscal biennium, the amount required for
each fiscal year for the payment of fees and expenses pursuant to this section.
[L 1971, c 185, pt of §1; HRS §705C-5; ren L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; am L Sp 1981
1st, c 22, §1; gen ch 1985; am L 1987, c 227, §1; am L 2004, c 202, §78; am L
2005, c 86, §§1, 2; am L 2006, c 94, §1 and c 133, §1; am L 2010, c 109, §1; am
L 2015, c 231, §6; am L 2021, c 58, §10; am L 2025, c 199, §1]
Case Notes
Total fees cannot exceed twice the maximum scheduled fee. 66
H. 366, 663 P.2d 630 (1983).
The language of this section does not empower the Hawaii
supreme court to compensate attorneys for services rendered before the United
States Supreme Court. 95 H. 28, 18 P.3d 890 (2001).
Under subsection (b), both the trial judge and the
administrative judge independently review excess fee requests to determine
whether a fee award is "fair compensation"; both the trial judge's
and the administrative judge's orders awarding fees under subsection (b) are
judicial acts subject to appellate review under the abuse of discretion
standard; to enable appellate review of excess fee awards, if a fee request is
reduced, it is necessary for the judge reducing the request to set forth
reasons for the reduction in order to determine whether the judge abused the
judge's discretion in ordering reduced fees. 126 H. 26, 265 P.3d 1122 (2011).
"Case" means all matters within numbered case, not
each count. 6 H. App. 20, 709 P.2d 105 (1985).
Where record indicated petitioner did not waive right to
appeal and trial counsel did not take steps to prosecute appeal, petitioner's
allegation of denial of effective assistance of counsel on appeal presented
colorable claim for post-conviction relief. 81 H. 185 (App.), 914 P.2d 1378
(1996).
Discussed: 97 H. 1, 32 P.3d 647 (2001).
Notes of Decisions
Attorney's Fees of Mohr v. Powers, 32 P.3d 647 (Haw. 2001).
· cites it 104× “BACKGROUND Pursuant to HRS § 802-5, Mohr was appointed as appellate counsel for Paul Powers in State v.”
State v. Harrison, 18 P.3d 890 (Haw. 2001).
· cites it 33× “Because HRS § 802-5 was not intended to compensate counsel for services rendered in the preparation of a petition to the United States Supreme Court, we deny Fisher’s request.”
State v. Kealoha., 414 P.3d 98 (Haw. 2018).
· cites it 17× “With respect to court-appointed counsel, this court has said that "[u]nder HRS § 802-5, requests for fees should be granted if the court certifies that the requesting attorney has met his or her burden to prove that the fees requested are for hours expended and that the hours…”
State v. Uchima., 464 P.3d 852 (Haw. 2020).
· cites it 8× “See HRS § 802-5 (2014) (providing for reasonable compensation to appointed counsel for representation at all stages of the proceeding, including appeal); HRAP Rule 2.”
In Re Bettencourt, 265 P.3d 1122 (Haw. 2011).
· cites it 44× “1, part II reads: "Court-appointed counsel are entitled to reasonable compensation for necessary fees [HRS § 802-5]. The Court determines the amount of reasonable compensation based upon statutory limits.”
Wong v. Takeuchi, 961 P.2d 611 (Haw. 1998).
· cites it 8× “]” HRS § 802-5(a) (1993). The burden of showing the reasonableness of a cost request under HRS § 802-5(a) is on the attorney making the request.”
State v. Ui, 663 P.2d 630 (Haw. 1983).
· cites it 13× “50 pursuant to HRS § 802-5(b). Although the court found the requested fees justified, it concluded HRS § 802-5(b) limited the amount of fees allowable for this type of case to $4,000; thus, a fee of only $4,000 was approved.”
D'ambrosio v. State, 146 P.3d 606 (Haw. App. 2006).
· cites it 8× “) Effective July 1, 2006, HRS § 802-5 was amended to provide that compensation for appointed counsel shall be "based on the rate of $90 an hour" without differentiation between in-court and out-of-court services, and the maximum amount payable to counsel for services provided at…”
State v. Przeradzki, 709 P.2d 105 (Haw. App. 1985).
· cites it 16× “” The sole issue raised by appellants is *21 whether the word “case” as used in HRS § 802-5 means all matters within the numbered criminal case or each count involved in such case.”
In re Attorney's Fees to McLaren v. Paradise Inn Hawaii, Inc., 321 P.3d 671 (Haw. 2014).
· cites it 8× “Moreover, because an order granting or denying attorney’s fees under HRS § 802-5 was an appealable final order, we held the following: (1) the administrative judge’s order awarding fees was a judicial act subject to appellate review under the abuse of discretion standard; and…”
State v. Choy Foo., 414 P.3d 117 (Haw. 2018).
· cites it 2× “See HRS § 802-4 (1974) (permitting public defenders to make indigence determinations, subject to court review, unless the court orders otherwise); HRS § 802-5 (2015) (providing for the court to appoint counsel for indigent defendants).”
State v. Cardenas., 500 P.3d 492 (Haw. App. 2021).
· cites it 6× “2016),10 which sets forth a statutory right to appointed counsel for indigent defendants like Cardenas, "imposes a duty on court- appointed counsel to consult with a defendant following a final order or judgment to determine whether the defendant wishes to appeal, as well as a…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 802-5(6) — 1 case
State v. Harrison, 18 P.3d 890 (Haw. 2001).
“Because HRS § 802-5 was not intended to compensate counsel for services rendered in the preparation of a petition to the United States Supreme Court, we deny Fisher’s request.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 802-5(a) — 5 cases
Wong v. Takeuchi, 961 P.2d 611 (Haw. 1998).
“]” HRS § 802-5(a) (1993). The burden of showing the reasonableness of a cost request under HRS § 802-5(a) is on the attorney making the request.”
State v. Uchima., 464 P.3d 852 (Haw. 2020).
“See HRS § 802-5 (2014) (providing for reasonable compensation to appointed counsel for representation at all stages of the proceeding, including appeal); HRAP Rule 2.”
State v. Cardenas., 500 P.3d 492 (Haw. App. 2021).
“2016),10 which sets forth a statutory right to appointed counsel for indigent defendants like Cardenas, "imposes a duty on court- appointed counsel to consult with a defendant following a final order or judgment to determine whether the defendant wishes to appeal, as well as a…”
State v. Harrison, 18 P.3d 890 (Haw. 2001).
“Because HRS § 802-5 was not intended to compensate counsel for services rendered in the preparation of a petition to the United States Supreme Court, we deny Fisher’s request.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 802-5(b) — 10 cases
Attorney's Fees of Mohr v. Powers, 32 P.3d 647 (Haw. 2001).
“BACKGROUND Pursuant to HRS § 802-5, Mohr was appointed as appellate counsel for Paul Powers in State v.”
In Re Bettencourt, 265 P.3d 1122 (Haw. 2011).
“1, part II reads: "Court-appointed counsel are entitled to reasonable compensation for necessary fees [HRS § 802-5]. The Court determines the amount of reasonable compensation based upon statutory limits.”
State v. Ui, 663 P.2d 630 (Haw. 1983).
“50 pursuant to HRS § 802-5(b). Although the court found the requested fees justified, it concluded HRS § 802-5(b) limited the amount of fees allowable for this type of case to $4,000; thus, a fee of only $4,000 was approved.”
State v. Harrison, 18 P.3d 890 (Haw. 2001).
“Because HRS § 802-5 was not intended to compensate counsel for services rendered in the preparation of a petition to the United States Supreme Court, we deny Fisher’s request.”
State v. Kealoha., 414 P.3d 98 (Haw. 2018).
“With respect to court-appointed counsel, this court has said that "[u]nder HRS § 802-5, requests for fees should be granted if the court certifies that the requesting attorney has met his or her burden to prove that the fees requested are for hours expended and that the hours…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 802-5(b)(1) — 2 cases
Attorney's Fees of Mohr v. Powers, 32 P.3d 647 (Haw. 2001).
“BACKGROUND Pursuant to HRS § 802-5, Mohr was appointed as appellate counsel for Paul Powers in State v.”
State v. Ui, 663 P.2d 630 (Haw. 1983).
“50 pursuant to HRS § 802-5(b). Although the court found the requested fees justified, it concluded HRS § 802-5(b) limited the amount of fees allowable for this type of case to $4,000; thus, a fee of only $4,000 was approved.”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 802-5(b)(2) — 1 case
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 802-5(b)(4) — 1 case
State v. Kealoha., 414 P.3d 98 (Haw. 2018).
“With respect to court-appointed counsel, this court has said that "[u]nder HRS § 802-5, requests for fees should be granted if the court certifies that the requesting attorney has met his or her burden to prove that the fees requested are for hours expended and that the hours…”
— Haw. Rev. Stat. § 802-5(b)(6) — 1 case
Attorney's Fees of Mohr v. Powers, 32 P.3d 647 (Haw. 2001).
“BACKGROUND Pursuant to HRS § 802-5, Mohr was appointed as appellate counsel for Paul Powers in State v.”
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.