Legal Opinion

State v. Putnam

Hawaii Supreme Court

Decided July 14, 2000No. 23017PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion of the Court by

ACOBA, J.

We hold that Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 706-625(5) (Supp.1999), which permits a trial court on revocation of probation to impose any sentence that might have originally been imposed at the time of conviction, does not apply to the sentencing procedure attendant to revocation of a deferred acceptance of guilty plea (DAGP), the same being already specifically governed by HRS § 853-3 (1993). Thus, we disagree with the argument of Defendant-Appellant Reyna Putnam (Defendant) to the contrary and affirm the ruling of the circuit court of the third circuit (the…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. State v. ArceoHawaii Supreme Court · 1996
  2. State v. ToyomuraHawaii Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Gray v. Administrative Director of CourtHawaii Supreme Court · 1997
  4. State v. GaylordHawaii Supreme Court · 1995
  5. State v. HigaHawaii Supreme Court · 1995

25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. State v. KalamaHawaii Supreme Court · 2000
  2. State v. EdwardsHawaii Supreme Court · 2001
  3. State v. Hussein.Hawaii Supreme Court · 2010
  4. State v. KealaikiHawaii Supreme Court · 2001
  5. State v. SakamotoHawaii Supreme Court · 2003

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API