Full text
STATE of Hawai'i, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee v. Lillian M. HUSSEIN, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant
Opinions in this case
Opinion text unavailable.
Loading…
Loading…
Opinion
122 Haw. 495 · Hawaii Supreme Court · Apr 21, 2010
Full text
STATE of Hawai'i, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee v. Lillian M. HUSSEIN, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant
Opinions in this case
Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · Jan 15, 2025
Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · Aug 20, 2024
Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · Aug 15, 2024
Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · Jul 11, 2024
Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · May 28, 2024
Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · Mar 28, 2024
Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · Feb 15, 2024
Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · Feb 6, 2024
Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · Dec 7, 2023
Parentheticals
holding that judges’ discretion in imposing consecutive sentences is "limit[ed]” because "in order to impose a consecutive sentence, the judge must find certain facts”
holding that “a court must state its reasons as to why a consecutive sentence rather than a concurrent one was required”
holding that "a court must state its reasons as to why a consecutive sentence rather than a concurrent one was required"
holding that, after the filing date of the judgment, circuit courts must state on the record at the time of sentencing the reasons for imposing a consecutive sentence
requiring that the sentencing court state “the specific circumstances that led the court to impose sentences consecutively in a particular case”
noting that a court is presumed to have read a pre-sentence report
noting that a court is presumed to have read a pre-sentence report
defining obiter dictum as a court’s incidental or collateral remark that does not directly relate to the resolution of any of the issues presented
citing, inter alia, State v. LeVasseur, 1 Haw. App. 19, 29, 613 P.2d 1328, 1335 (1980) ("[W]e point out that under [HRPP Rule 35] it is open to the court below to reduce the sentence within ninety (90) days of the receipt of our mandate if it sees fit.") (emphasis added)
“Under HRS § 806-73, then, the [pre-sentence reports] are manifestly subject to restricted dissemination, and are not to be made available for all to use.”
"A sentencing court must consider all sentencing options, since such consideration is mandated by HRS § 706-606(3)."
"circuit courts must state on the record at the time of sentencing the reasons for imposing a consecutive sentence"