***NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI‘I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER***
This disposition on remand is required because, as stated in the aforesaid concurring and dissenting opinion (Acoba, J., concurring and dissenting, joined by Duffy, J.), (1) Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) §§ 706-661 and -662, the extended term sentencing statutes, are not rendered unconstitutional in their entirety under Cunningham, (2) the legislature has expressed its intent to preserve extended term sentencing, (3) such a disposition is approved by Cunningham, (4) the majority's position in Maugaotega concluding that the entire extended term statutes are unconstitutional is diametrically opposed and inconsistent with its position in State v. Janto, 92 Hawai‘i 19, 986 P.2d 306 (1999), State v. Young, 93 Hawai‘i 224, 999 P.2d 230 (2000), and State v. Peralto, 95 Hawai‘i 1, 18 P.3d 203 (2001), where the majority asserted the appropriateness of remanding cases for determination by a jury of proposed enhanced sentences even though the statute designated the judge rather than a jury as being charged with that task.
I concur in all other respects.