Opinion ID: 2813360
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Risks of Self-Representation

Text: The second area of inquiry set forth in Dickson is designed to “fully assure that the defendant is informed of the risks of self-representation.” 4 Haw. App. at 619-20, 673 P.2d at 1041. The court should therefore make the defendant aware of “the nature of the charge, the elements of the offense, the pleas and defenses available, the punishments which may be imposed, and all other facts essential to a broad understanding of the whole matter.” Id. (citations omitted). This information is essential to a defendant’s understanding of the personal risks of self-representation. Id. 14 LaFave et al., supra note 11, § 11.5(c) suggests that trial court follow up any reference to a risk or disadvantage with an inquiry designed to reveal whether the defendant understands the court’s warning. 15 See supra Part III.A. - 27 - In this case, the district court did not address the potential risks of self-representation with Phua. Most significantly, the court did not inform Phua of the potential punishment that could be imposed at the sentencing proceeding.16 It is unlikely that a record could reflect a knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel at sentencing without the defendant being apprised of such basic information as the maximum or range of punishment that may be imposed. See State v. Hartman, 349 A.2d 223, 225 (Vt. 1975) (“If a defendant . . . is unaware of the nature of the charges and the range of the allowable punishment at the time of his decision to represent himself, the waiver of his rights . . . is not made knowingly and intelligently.”). This is particularly true in this case where the record reflects that Phua had limited or no familiarity with the criminal justice system. Since information regarding the potential sentence is fundamental to an understanding of the risks of waiving counsel, trial courts should take care to ask questions that inform a defendant of this critical information. The record shows no 16 The ICA misapprehended the record in this case: “Phua articulates no reason why the District Court’s inquiry about his education, work history, and experience after warning him of the possible punishment and advising him of the risks of self-representation was prejudicial.” (Emphasis added). No such warning regarding the possible punishment occurred in this case. - 28 - indication that Phua was informed of or understood the maximum penalty that could be imposed at sentencing; consequently we cannot find that his waiver of counsel was knowingly and voluntarily made.