PART I. 
PRE-SENTENCE INVESTIGATION AND REPORT, AUTHORIZED



DISPOSITION,
AND CLASSES OF FELONIES



 



Law Journals and Reviews



 



  Comments and Questions About Mental Health Law in Hawaii.  13
HBJ No. 4 Winter 1978, pg. 18.



 



§706-600  Sentence in accordance with this
chapter.  No sentence shall be imposed otherwise than in accordance with
this chapter. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; am L 1986, c 314, §10]



 



COMMENTARY ON §706-600



 



  This section establishes that dispositions for all offenses--
whether defined within or outside of the Penal Code--are to be imposed in
accordance with this chapter and that, except for the power of the court to
impose "incidental civil sanctions such as forfeitures of property,
suspension or cancellation of licenses, removal from office and the like,"
as provided in §706-605(4), "the only dispositions authorized are those
permitted by the Code."[1]



  The Penal Code, in centralizing provisions relating to the
disposition of convicted defendants in one chapter, differs from previous law
which provided a separate sanction (fine or imprisonment or both) for each
offense.  This resulted in authorized sentences which, when considered in
relation to the potential danger to the person resulting from the commission of
each offense, gave rise to a sense of inconsistency.  An act of destruction of
real or personal property with intent to hinder the United States in its
military preparations was given a 20- year sentence and a $10,000 fine[2] while
kidnapping was deemed worthy of a life sentence but only a $1,000[3] fine.  An
offense delicately called "carnal abuse" of a female child under
twelve years of age was punishable by life imprisonment,[4] whereas
manslaughter, defined as killing without malice aforethought, received a
relatively lenient ten-year sentence.[5]  Larceny from the person drew a
two-year sentence and a $2,000 fine,[6] whereas simple larceny, not involving
any potential danger to the person, was punished by a ten-year sentence but no
fine at all.[7]  None of the penalties mentioned is inherently wrong, although
most are questionable, but taken together they reflect no consistent policy.



  By centralizing sentencing the Code seeks to achieve an
internal consistency which is lacking under previous law.



 



Case Notes



 



  As §706-661 and this section do not authorize a court to
impose a single sentence on a defendant who has been convicted of multiple
charges, trial court did not violate plea agreement by imposing a life term for
each class A felony defendant was convicted of, and then running each life term
concurrently.  91 H. 20, 979 P.2d 1046.



 



__________



§706-600 Commentary:



 



1.  M.P.C., Tentative Draft No. 2, comments at 12 (1954).



 



2.  H.R.S. §767-2.



 



3.  Id. §749-1.



 



4.  Id. §768-36.



 



5.  Id. §748-7.



 



6.  Id. §750-22.



 



7.  Id. §750-19.