follow” from a conviction in that deportation “can be instituted only upon the order of the Attorney General” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). Pursuant to HRS § 846E-3(a), the attorney general and county police departments, both agencies not controlled by the judiciary, are required to administer the registration of convicted persons and the release of information to other law enforcement and government agencies and to the public. In this regard, sex offender registration requirements are “collateral” consequences of Defendant’s conviction, and, thus, the court had no duty to warn Defendant, prior to pleading guilty, about the collateral consequences of conviction flowing from sex offender registration requirements. Cf. Nguyen, 81 Hawai'i at 287, 916 P.2d at 697 (<HOLDING>); State v. Bollig, 232 Wis.2d 561, 605 N.W.2d
holding that deportation is collateral consequence and deportations admonishments are not constitutionally required holding that the sanction of deportation is a collateral not direct consequence of a guilty plea holding that an enhancement in a future sentence based on the present conviction is a collateral consequence and need not be advised of by the district court in its plea colloquy holding that a sentencing court may warn a defendant of the possibility of a sentence enhancement holding that the court had no duty to warn defendants about the possibility of deportation as a collateral consequence of conviction