HB2252 would amend Hawaii’s theft statute to add a new sentencing rule for the most serious first-degree theft cases. Under the bill, if the value of the property or services stolen exceeds $250,000, the court would be required to impose at least 12 months of incarceration, whether the sentence is structured as an indeterminate prison term or as a condition of probation or supervision. The bill also preserves other available penalties, such as restitution and fines, and states that the mandatory jail/prison time may not be suspended or otherwise waived.
The bill leaves the existing definition of theft in the first degree largely intact. First-degree theft would remain a class B felony and would continue to cover theft of property or services over $20,000, firearms, explosives, theft during a declared emergency, theft from or of older adults in specified circumstances, and theft of a motor vehicle or motorcycle. The new provision would apply only to the highest-value theft cases and would add a sentencing floor on top of current felony penalties.
Impact
HB2252 would amend section 708-830.5 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, the state’s first-degree theft statute, by creating a mandatory minimum incarceration requirement for thefts exceeding $250,000. It would affect sentencing discretion in those cases by limiting the court’s ability to impose probation or a suspended sentence without at least 12 months of incarceration. The bill would also reinforce that restitution and fines remain available, so the change is primarily punitive and sentencing-related rather than redefining the underlying offense.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and available procedural history, the measure appears to be framed as a tough-on-theft response to very large-value property crimes. There are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or opposition in the materials supplied. The referral to the House Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs committee suggests it was still in the early review stage.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the mandatory minimum sentence itself. Supporters would likely view the bill as a way to ensure meaningful punishment for high-dollar theft and to deter major property crimes, while critics may object that it removes judicial discretion and could require incarceration even in cases where probation might otherwise be considered appropriate. Another possible issue is that the bill applies the same mandatory incarceration floor whether the sentence is imposed as imprisonment or as a probation condition, which may be seen as limiting alternative sentencing options.