§706-668.5  Multiple sentence of
imprisonment.  (1)  If multiple terms of imprisonment are imposed on a
defendant, whether at the same time or at different times, or if a term of
imprisonment is imposed on a defendant who is already subject to an unexpired
term of imprisonment, the terms may run concurrently or consecutively. 
Multiple terms of imprisonment run concurrently unless the court orders or the
statute mandates that the terms run consecutively.



(2)  The court, in determining whether the
terms imposed are to be ordered to run concurrently or consecutively, shall
consider the factors set forth in section 706-606. [L 1986, c 314, §45; am L
2008, c 193, §1]



 



COMMENTARY ON §706-668.5



 



  Act 193, Session Laws 2008, amended this section to promote
consistency in sentencing law by requiring that multiple terms of imprisonment,
whether imposed at the same time or at different times, run concurrently unless
the court orders or the statute mandates that the terms run consecutively. 
Testimony indicated that there had been some misunderstanding and
misinterpretation of the sentencing law involving multiple terms of
imprisonment.  Act 193 clarified the law.  Conference Committee Report No.
81-08, House Standing Committee Report No. 688-08, Senate Standing Committee
Report No. 3337.



 



Law Journals and Reviews



 



  State v. Kumukau:  A Case for the Application of Eighth
Amendment Proportionality Analysis.  13 UH L. Rev. 577.



 



Case Notes



 



  Sentencing court's imposition of consecutive prison terms
pursuant to this section constituted an abuse of discretion, where court's sole
purpose in imposing consecutive terms was to maximize the supervisory power of
the Hawai`i paroling authority over defendant in an attempt to facilitate the
collection of court-ordered restitution.  78 H. 127, 890 P.2d 1167.



  Sentencing court did not abuse its discretion in resentencing
appellant to consecutive terms of imprisonment.  79 H. 281, 901 P.2d 481.



  Extraordinarily sadistic and cruel manner in which defendant
committed offenses and defendant's past behavioral history required
retributive, incapacitative and deterrent penal objectives of consecutive terms
of imprisonment achieved under this section.  83 H. 335, 926 P.2d 1258.



  Trial court plainly erred in sentencing defendant to consecutive
terms of imprisonment based on the unsubstantiated allegation that defendant
had transferred a semi-automatic firearm to a drug dealer.  106 H. 441, 106
P.3d 364.



  Where defendant was convicted by the jury of five
first-degree thefts, each of which defendant was sentenced to ten years'
incarceration, and pursuant to §706-660 and this section, five ten-year terms
running consecutively was the statutory maximum, defendant's sentence did not
deprive defendant of defendant's right to a jury trial as interpreted by the
U.S. Supreme Court in Apprendi and Blakely.  111 H. 267, 141 P.3d 440.



  Trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing
defendant to consecutive terms of imprisonment under this section where, taking
into consideration all of the factors set forth in §706-606, the court pointed
to the high level of cruelty, violence, and viciousness involved in the
commission of the offenses, that most of the offenses took place in front of
defendant's two-year-old son, defendant's lack of remorse, the clear and
present danger defendant posed to complainant and the community, and the poor
prospects for defendant's rehabilitation.  106 H. 365 (App.), 105 P.3d 242.



  Discussed:  81 H. 421 (App.), 918 P.2d 228.