of the HPC. Cf. Commentary to HRS § 702-220 (1993) (noting that a “mistaken belief by the defendant that the defendant’s conduct is not legally prohibited by the penal law ... must, in most instances, be held ... [to] afford no excuse ... ”); State v. Cavness, 80 Hawai'i 460, 468, 911 P.2d 95, 103 (App.1996) (Kirimitsu, J., concurring and dissenting) (concluding that, in enacting HRS §§ 702-218 and 702-220, “the legislature eliminated generally the ignorance or mistake of law defense in order ... [to] reflect the legal maxim, ignorance of the law excuses nobody” (footnote omitted)). Just as defendants are charged by the HPC with constructive knowledge of the possibility, for example, of consecutive sentences for multiple crimes, see Cornelio, 84 Hawai'i at 494-95, 935 P.2d at 1039-40 (<HOLDING>), so too may they be charged with constructive
holding that to determine whether a north carolina conviction for a crime is punishable by a prison term exceeding one year a court is to consider the maximum aggravated sentence that could be imposed for that crime upon a defendant with the worst possible criminal history internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted holding that state officials cannot have been expected to predict the future course of constitutional law internal quotation marks omitted holding that a statute must be construed so that no part of the statute is rendered surplusage or superfluous internal quotation marks and citation omitted holding that a sentence imposing consecutive prison terms must embody inter alia the forwardlooking aim of future crime reduction or prevention the deterrent goal citation and internal quotation signal omitted holding that in the asylum context the bia must provide an individualized analysis of how changed conditions will affect the specific petitioners situation citation and internal quotation marks omitted