§853-3 Violation of terms and conditions
during deferment; result. Upon violation of a term or condition set by the
court for a deferred acceptance of guilty plea or deferred acceptance of nolo
contendere plea, the court may enter an adjudication of guilt and proceed as
otherwise provided. [L 1976, c 154, pt of §2; am L 1983, c 290, §4]
Case Notes
Because a court's course of action following revocation of a
deferred acceptance of guilty plea is expressly set forth in this section, no
need or justification arises for resort to any other statute, such as
§706-625(5). 93 H. 362, 3 P.3d 1239 (2000).
Section 706-625(5), which permits a trial court on revocation
of probation to impose any sentence that might have originally been imposed at
the time of conviction, does not apply to the sentencing procedure attendant to
revocation of a deferred acceptance of guilty plea, which is already
specifically governed by this section. 93 H. 362, 3 P.3d 1239 (2000).
No abuse of discretion where family court concluded that
defendant's refusal to take polygraph examination, resulting in defendant's
termination from sex offender treatment program, constituted a violation of the
terms and conditions of the deferred acceptance of nolo contendere plea order,
warranting that it be set aside. 92 H. 289 (App.), 990 P.2d 1171 (1999).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases, 1993–2016 · leading case:
State v. Shannon, 185 P.3d 200 (Haw. 2008).
State v. Shannon, 185 P.3d 200 (Haw. 2008).
· cites it 54× “2d 295 (1993), his DAGP could not be revoked by the court, (4) further, consistent with the written conditions requirement and HRS § 853-3 (1993) as it is construed with HRS § 706-627(1) (1993), a motion to revoke a DAGP for failure to comply with its conditions must be in…”
State v. Putnam, 3 P.3d 1239 (Haw. 2000).
· cites it 16× “1999), which permits a trial court on revocation of probation to impose any sentence that might have originally been imposed at the time of conviction, does not apply to the sentencing procedure attendant to revocation of a deferred acceptance of guilty plea (DAGP), the same…”
State v. Kauhi, 948 P.2d 1036 (Haw. 1997).
· cites it 4× “Moreover, pursuant to HRS § 853-3, Abraham was potentially at risk of being sentenced to a period of incarceration in the event she violated any term or condition of her DAG Plea.”
State v. Naone, 990 P.2d 1171 (Haw. App. 1999).
· cites it 4× “Therefore, the applicable statute is HRS § 853-3 (1993), which provides: Violation of terms and conditions during deferment; result.”
State v. Frazer, 375 P.3d 267 (Haw. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “See HRS § 712-1255(1); HRS § 853-3 (2014). . Courts from other jurisdictions have held that defendants subject to deferred proceedings similar to that provided under HRS § 712-1255 were under indictment for purposes of firearms statutes.”
State v. Wong, 861 P.2d 759 (Haw. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “When Wong failed to satisfy (a), the counseling-according-to-schedule condition, the family court implicitly acted pursuant to HRS §§ 853-3 (1985) and 709-906(5), implicitly revoked its DAGP, implicitly *160 accepted his guilty plea, and expressly sentenced him to…”
State v. Kimsel, 122 P.3d 1148 (Haw. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “” HRS § 853-3 (1993) provides: "Upon violation of a term or condition set by the court for a deferred acceptance of guilty plea or deferred acceptance of nolo contendere [ (DANC)] plea, the court may enter an adjudication of guilt and proceed as otherwise provided.”
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.