The Hawaii Supreme Court has agreed to hear a significant case that could impact the state's sentencing authority. The case, Marks v. State, revolves around whether the Hawaii Paroling Authority's (HPA) power to set minimum terms of imprisonment violates the separation of powers doctrine. This decision could affect how sentencing is approached in Hawaii and the rights of convicted individuals.
Donald B. Marks, the petitioner in this case, filed an application for a writ of certiorari on July 16, 2026. The court accepted the application on September 14, 2026, and will limit oral arguments to the specific question of the HPA's authority under Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) §§ 706-656 and 706-669. The outcome of this case may reshape the legal landscape regarding sentencing and parole in Hawaii.
Background
Donald B. Marks is the petitioner in this case, challenging the authority of the HPA. The HPA is responsible for determining the minimum term of imprisonment for convicted individuals in Hawaii. Marks argues that this authority infringes upon the separation of powers doctrine, which is designed to prevent any one branch of government from exercising too much power.
The dispute arose when Marks was sentenced under Hawaii’s statutory sentencing scheme. He contends that allowing the HPA to set minimum sentences undermines the judiciary's role in determining appropriate punishments for crimes. This case has traveled through the legal system, culminating in the Hawaii Supreme Court's decision to review it.
The Ruling
The Hawaii Supreme Court, in a decision led by Acting Chief Justice Sabrina S. McKenna and Justices Todd W. Eddins and Lisa M. Ginoza, accepted Marks' application for certiorari. The court stated, "The parties shall limit oral argument to whether Hawaiʻi’s statutory sentencing scheme under HRS §§ 706-656 and 706-669 violates the separation of powers doctrine." This indicates that the court is focusing specifically on the constitutional implications of the HPA's authority.
Additionally, the court noted that the arguments would also consider whether the HPA's powers conflict with other provisions of both the U.S. Constitution and the Hawaii Constitution. This highlights the case's potential significance not only for Marks but for the broader legal framework governing sentencing and parole in Hawaii.
Impact
The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for the criminal justice system in Hawaii. If the court finds that the HPA's authority violates the separation of powers doctrine, it may lead to significant changes in how minimum sentences are determined. This could enhance the role of judges in sentencing, ensuring that the judiciary retains control over punishment decisions.
Furthermore, a ruling against the HPA may set a precedent for similar cases across the United States, where the balance of power between different branches of government in the context of sentencing is often debated. The implications of this case extend beyond Marks, potentially affecting many individuals currently incarcerated or facing sentencing in Hawaii.
What's Next
The court will schedule oral arguments for the case, and the parties involved will be notified by the appellate clerk. Depending on the outcome, there may be opportunities for further appeals or related cases, but details were not available in the court filing.