HRS § 706-669
COMMENTARY ON § 706-669
This section continues the policy of the previous law of vesting in the Board of Paroles and Pardons the exclusive authority to determine the minimum time which must be served before the prisoner will be eligible for parole. However, the Code differs from present law in two respects: (a) it does not recognize a sentence of imprisonment not subject to the possibility of parole except the instances enumerated in § 706-606(a), and (b) it provides that the order of the Board shall be made upon the basis of a prior hearing which, under subsection (3), affords the prisoner an opportunity to be heard and a mode for participation. Both concepts are suggested by the Model Penal Code.[1] In addition, subsection (3) specifically provides that the prisoner will be afforded assistance and representation by counsel, if the prisoner wishes.
Subsection (2) continues the previous requirement that the Board of Paroles arm itself with sufficient information concerning the prisoner before it makes a determination as to parole eligibility. Subsection (4) is a continuation of the previous policy of granting to the Board the authority to impose a special condition relating to the prisoner's behavior before the prisoner will be eligible for parole. Subsection (5) gives the Board the discretionary power to reduce the minimum term previously fixed by its order. Subsection (6) insures that a record of the hearing will be made and preserved.
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTARY ON § 706-669
When the Legislature adopted the Code in 1972, it provided for life imprisonment without possibility of parole in the four instances enumerated in § 706-606(a).
Act 92, Session Laws 1976, substituted the terms "Hawaii paroling authority" and "authority" for the term "board of paroles and pardons" and "board."
Act 282, Session Laws 1988, amended this section to allow the prosecuting attorney to appear and present oral comment and written testimony at minimum term hearings before the Hawaii paroling authority, disallowing oral testimony by witnesses. Senate Conference Committee Report No. 270, House Conference Committee Report No. 96-88.
Act 4, Session Laws 1996, amended this section by clarifying that victims may present written statements or oral comments at minimum prison term hearings before the parole board. The legislature found that the practice of the parole board was to permit victims or their representatives the opportunity to comment at minimum term hearings, although current law did not expressly provide for that opportunity. The legislature agreed that victims should be allowed to be heard and to be present at the hearings, and that victims were entitled to be heard when the crimes involved property, as well as when the crimes were against persons. Senate Standing Committee Report No. 1972, House Standing Committee Report No. 1025-96.
Act 193, Session Laws 1996, amended this section by providing that the prosecuting attorney shall receive sixty days notice prior to the reduction of minimum terms of imprisonment by the Hawaii paroling authority. Current law was unclear regarding whether the prosecuting attorney was entitled to notice prior to the reduction of minimum terms of imprisonment by the paroling authority. The Act clarified that the prosecuting attorney is entitled to notice. Conference Committee Report No. 60.
Mentioned with respect to claim of right as a defense.63 Haw. 105,621 P.2d 381. Section (1993) allows victim or their representatives the opportunity to make oral comments at minimum prison term hearings before the Hawaii paroling authority.91 Haw. 20,979 P.2d 1046. Neither chapter 706 nor chapter 353 prohibits the Hawaii paroling authority from setting a prisoner's minimum term at a period equal to his or her maximum sentence.97 Haw. 183,35 P.3d 210. This section required the Hawaii paroling authority to conduct its minimum term hearing within six months of defendant's commitment to the custody of the director of the department of public safety, and the paroling authority was not jurisdictionally barred by § 706-660.1(1) from fulfilling this statutorily imposed duty.111 Haw. 35,137 P.3d 349. Where Hawaii paroling authority's minimum term decision was in violation of the authority's guidelines as it failed to specify either the level of punishment or the significant criteria upon which the decision was based, the failure to include this information was arbitrary and capricious; thus, an amended minimum term order issued by the authority did not "cure" the authority's initial violation of its guidelines and the petitioner did not have to show prejudice in order to obtain postconviction relief from the minimum term order. 116 H. 181, 172 P.3d 493. __________ § 706-669 Commentary: 1. See M.P.C. §§6.06, 6.07, 305.6 and 305.7.