 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Smith12/26/2003
ion that, contrary to Smith's contentions, the plain language and legislative history of HRS § 706-622.5 "unequivocally evince that Section 706-622.5 . . . was never intended to supercede the provisions of Section 706-606.5 . . . , the repeat offender statute."
At the March 25, 2003 hearing of Smith's "motion for reconsideration of sentence," the circuit court stated as follows:
. . . The real issue is whether or not Act 161 on its face trumps the repeat offender provision, and that is where this Court had some misgivings.
Having considered all of the arguments in writing and setting aside sympathy, setting aside character, setting aside Ms. Smith's personal situation, the Court agrees with the State's position that when the legislature provided for treatment for first-time drug offenders, they did not mean to preclude the application of repeat offender sentencing. And it's clear from their language, and the Court does not find the ambiguity that the defense counsel argued should be in defendant's favor, it is clear that the legislature did not preclude repeat offender sentencing or they would have clearly stated that in the passage of Act 161. When people are repeat offenders, the legislature did not intend that they should not suffer the consequence of repeat behavior.
With respect to Act 161, the only provision that Act 161 wanted to ensure was that with first-time offenders, especially first-time drug offenders, the treatment be part of the package and that is with respect to sentencing by eliminating the mandatory prison term.
The legislature also clearly set forth treatment even for drug offenders who were sentenced to prison. So it was clear that they did not suggest that probation and treatment was the only way to address the drug problem.
Having the opportunity to review, the Court grants, the language provided under Act 161 is providing for repeat offender sentencing, notwithstanding the treatment for drug offenders and, on that basis, having provided that view to Act 161, the Court denies the defendant's motion for reconsideration of sentence.
Although the circuit court denied Smith's "motion for reconsideration of sentence," it reduced Smith's mandatory minimum sentence from one year to six months based on "certain factors . . . extenuating circumstances" (i.e., a letter Smith had addressed to the court and Smith's "genuine interest in drug treatment"). On April 1, 2003, the circuit court entered its findings of fact (FOFs), conclusions of law (COLs), and order denying Smith's "motion for reconsideration of sentence." The court found, inter alia:
4. With respect to Section 706-622.5 of the Hawai[`]i Revised Statutes (Act 161), the Court finds from the legislative history of the Regular Session of the 2002 Hawai[`]i State Legislature that the legislature did not intend Act 161 to override the provisions of Section 706-606.5 of the Hawai[`]i Revised Statutes.
5. With respect to issues raised by the instant motion, the Court does not find that ambiguity exists between Section 706-622.5 and Section 706-606.5 of the Hawai[`]i Revised Statutes.
Based on the foregoing FOFs, the circuit court concluded, inter alia:
1. Notwithstanding Section 706-669 of the Hawai[`]i Revised Statutes and any other law to the contrary, a person convicted of Promoting Dangerous Drugs in the Third Degree, in violation of Section 712-1243 of the Hawai[`]i Revised Statutes, who has prior convictions for Forgery in the Second Degree, in violation of Section 708-852 of the Hawai[`]i Revised Statutes, and/or Theft in the Second Degree, in violation of Section 708-831(1)(b) of the Ha
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|