State v. SaufuaState v. Saufua
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Lum
OPINION OF THE COURT BY
LUM, C.J.This appeal raises the question whether the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 706-606.5, may be imposed consecutive to the terms of imprisonment for the underlying felony convictions. The statute was incorrectly construed by the trial court and we reverse and remand for resentencing.
*617 I.
On October 6,1983, Appellant was convicted of Robbery in the Second Degree in violation of
The trial court revoked probation and sentenced Appellant to concurrent terms of twenty and ten years for the prior offense and to a ten year consecutive sentence for the instánt conviction. It further sentenced Appellant to a three year mandatory minimum term under the repeat offender statute but ruled that it was to be served consecutive to the above sentence. Appellant was sentenced to a total of 33 years imprisonment.
II.
*618
The sentencing court ruled and the State argues that the “tacking” of the mandatory minimum is authorized by the statute.
The sentencing court may impose the above sentences consecutive to any other sentence then or previously imposed on the defendant ....
In the absence of clearly expressed legislative language to the contrary, the language of a statute must be regarded as conclusive but this court’s primary duty is to ascertain and implement the intention of the legislature. Kaiama v. Aguilar, 67 Haw. 549, 696 P.2d 839 (1985). In ascertaining intent, the language of the provision must be read in the context of the entire statute and construed in a manner consistent with its purposes. Foster Village Community Ass’n. v. Hess, 4 Haw. App. 463, 667 P.2d 850 (1983). The construction propounded by the State is inconsistent with the sentencing scheme of the Hawaii Penal Code as articulated by HRS Chapter 706, providing for the disposition of convicted defendants, particularly its maximum term and extended term sentencing requirements.
Maximum indeterminate sentences for felony convictions are provided for under
In enacting the repeat offender law, the legislature stated:
In particular your Committee concurs that necessary steps should be taken so that any person convicted for some of the most serious and reprehensible felonies as defined by the Hawaii Penal Code be sentenced, for each conviction after the first conviction to a mandatory sentence without the possibility of parole. (Emphasis added.)
Sen. Conf. Comm. Rep. No. 33-76 in 1976 Senate Journal at 883, Hse. Conf. Comm. Rep. No. 32 in 1976 House Journal at 1141. The mandatory minimum sentencing provisions are intended to apply to sentences imposed for the underlying subsequent conviction which triggered application of the statute. Logically, the required period of unparoled imprisonment is subsumed within the
*620
maximum sentence imposed for that offense. This is in harmony with the statutory scheme. The consecutive sentencing language of
The lower court erred in its construction and application of the statute.
Reversed and remanded for resentencing consistent with this opinion.
Notes
The applicable portion of the statute reads:
§ 706-606.5 Sentencing of repeat offenders.
(2) Notwithstanding section 706-669 and any other law to the contrary, any person convicted under section . . . 708-841 relating to robbery in the second degree .. . who has a prior conviction or prior convictions for one or *618 more offenses enumerated in subsection (1) or this subsection in this or another jurisdiction, within the time of the maximum sentence of any prior conviction, shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum period of imprisonment without possibility of parole during such period as follows:
(a) One prior conviction — 3 years[.]
Appellant had prior convictions for First Degree Robbery,
(1) For a class B felony — 10 years; and
(2) For a class C felony — 5 years.
The minimum length of imprisonment shall be determined by the Hawaii paroling authority in accordance with section 706-669.
(1) For a class A felony — life;
(2) For a class B felony — twenty years; and
(3) For a class C felony — ten years.
The minimum length of imprisonment shall be determined by the board of paroles and pardons in accordance with section 706-669.
Legislative interpretation of the provision appears in accord with this interpretation. In constructing the 1980 amendment to the repeat offender statute, HRS 706-606.5, the Legislative Reference Bureau stated that the amendment:
Deletes judicial discretion allowing the sentence on the subsequent conviction to be served consecutively to any other sentence then, or previously, imposed on defendant.
Legislative Reference Bureau, 1980 Digest and Index of Laws Enacted § 284 (1980).